ROSE: LEGAL EXEC USED SOPHISTICATED TO FILM UP WOMEN’S SKIRTS

A legal executive who used a hidden camera to secretly film up women’s skirts for his own sexual gratification was jailed for six months.
 
Alan Howard Rose, 50, was caught red-handed in Boots at Liverpool Street rail station, after an eagle-eyed member of staff saw him using the video-recorder.
 
Sex addict Rose admitted using the ‘sophisticated’ device to obtain footage of female underwear and private parts on 23 occasions over a nine year period.

Just two years ago, the married father-of-one was fined £350 for disorderly behaviour after filming up a woman’s skirt in a supermarket – using the same camera.
 
He was also convicted of a similar offence in 2007, Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard. 
 
Prosecuting, Izolda Gribbin told the court: ‘The device the defendant used, consisting of a camcorder in a bag, was quite sophisticated.
 
‘The camera lens was adjustable which would allow the defendant to zoom in and out.
 
‘A monitor would allow him to view the images as they were being taken.
 
‘He was caught red-handed in Boots by a member of staff who called the police.
 
‘He attempted to run away but they chased him and he was arrested.’

Rose, of Avondale Avenue, Barnet, north London, admitted outraging public decency at Boots on June
14 this year and 22 other like offences committed between April 1, 2002 and June 1, 2011.

Defending, Hannah Stephenson said that Rose – who kept the case secret from his employers – was ‘desperate to overcome his urges’.
 
‘I make no qualms in this case that the custody threshold has been passed and Mr Rose accepts that.
 
‘It’s important to point out that the images were for his personal use, and were not shared with others.
 
‘He regrets what he has done and is disgusted and ashamed of his behaviour over the past few years.
 
‘He is not only motivated to overcome this behaviour, he is desperate to, and his wife is equally eager for him to move beyond this.
 
‘Never in the past has he received any form of intervention.
 
‘Perhaps more shocking is that after his first conviction in 2007, there was no forfeiture and destruction order.
 
‘The camera which the defendant used was the same camera that was given back to him.
 
‘Had he been charged properly in the first place, this behaviour could have been nipped in bud at an early stage but unfortunately, it’s been allowed to continue.’
 
Ms Stephenson told the court that Rose’s wife and seven-year-old son would suffer if he was jailed.
 
Mrs Rose would be unable to pay the mortgage on her own, she said.

According to a pre-sentence report Rose is unlikely to address his problems unless he receives specialist help.
 
Ms Stephenson urged the bench to spare Rose from jail: ‘If he is sent to prison, he will come out and there will be no support and he will be likely to re-offend,’ she said.
 
‘This is a man crying out for the help probation can give him.
 
‘Since his arrest, he has been attending meetings with sex addicts anonymous, but stopped because he didn’t feel he needed to go – when obviously he did.
 
‘He has also been prescribed anti-depressants by his GP but stopped taking them because he felt they were not helping him.
 
‘Mr Rose is heavily motivated to overcome this for himself, his family and the public.
 
‘Not only is he willing to engage, he has shown gratitude to the probation service for enabling him to engage in a sexual offenders programme.
 
‘He knows it’s necessary and is thankful to have that offer available to him.
 
‘The offences began early this year but the camera dates to 2002 and that is reflected on the charge sheet,’ Ms Stephenson added.
 
But chairman of the bench, Paul Brooks, told Rose that prison was the only option.
 
‘We have concluded that these offences are so serious, they have crossed the custody threshold.
 
‘That’s because these are your third offences of a similar nature in a relatively short period of time, and also because of the number of victims.
 
‘You obtained instant sexual gratification viewing the images on the monitor.
 
‘We have thought long and hard about suspending your sentence but because of these reasons, only a custodial sentence is appropriate.
 
‘I am sentencing you to 26 weeks concurrently in prison, which was reduced by a third because of your early guilty plea.
 
‘Otherwise it would have been 39 weeks.
 
‘Half of this will be spent in prison with the remainder in the community.’
 
Mr Brooks also ordered that Rose’s camera equipment be forfeited and destroyed.
 
For the next five years, Rose is also banned from having any device that is capable of sending, capturing or recording images – including a mobile phone.
 
He is also forbidden to film or take pictures of women in public without their permission.
 
Wearing a dark blue suit, blue shirt and tie, Rose spoke only to confirm his name, age and address.
 
He smiled at his wife, who was sitting in court, as he was led away from the dock to begin his sentence.
ENDS