Those who have followed Emily Hunt’s legal challenge over the last year may be aware that in January, Emily’s judicial review claim succeeded, following her intervention in an important case heard by the Court of Appeal. Emily was represented by the Centre for Women’s Justice.

For those who missed it: the Court of Appeal this year upheld the conviction of a man (Tony Richards), who had been convicted of the offence of voyeurism after filming a number of sexual partners engaged in sexual acts with him, without their consent. After hearing submissions on behalf of Mr Richards, the Crown Prosecution Service, and Emily herself, the court confirmed that it is entirely lawful to convict a person of voyeurism in circumstances where a sexual encounter itself is consensual, but the covert recording of that encounter is not.

Emily had already been arguing for a number of months that this was the only feasible interpretation of the law. The Crown Prosecution Service however had, until recently, always maintained in responding to Emily’s complaint that the law simply could not be interpreted in this way, which resulted in no charges being brought against the man who filmed her, naked, while she slept.

Now, the approved transcript of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in January has been released - and Emily hopes it will raise awareness that taking explicit videos of anyone without their consent is abuse.

We have also now learned that Mr Richards - who wanted the Supreme Court to reconsider the Court of Appeal’s decision, in the hope of setting a new precedent that would decriminalise his behaviour - has been told that the Court of Appeal will not certify or grant leave for any further appeal. This means - to Emily’s great relief - that the interpretation of ‘voyeurism’ confirmed by the Court of Appeal in January is final.

Emily is still waiting to find out, meanwhile, whether the Crown Prosecution Service will now charge the man who explicitly filmed her, having now accepted that their original interpretation of the law was wrong.

Read the official judgment of the Court of Appeal - following Emily’s intervention in January - here.