A woman has been sentenced to 26 months in prison after being convicted of secretly recording hundreds of unsuspecting men using toilets at an Aldi supermarket and Darlington Train Station. The shocking revelations emerged during proceedings at Teesside Crown Court, where the court was presented with evidence of her systematic and calculated actions that took place over nearly a year.
Details of the Crime
The offender, Chleo Sunter, 37, was caught with an alarming 790 pictures and 15 videos of men using toilets in various public locations between January and November 2023. The covert recordings included images and videos of men both standing at urinals and inside cubicles, completely unaware of being filmed. The court heard that Sunter’s activities were premeditated and executed with the intent of capturing as many images as possible during the specified period.
The incidents took place at an Aldi supermarket in Middlesbrough and at Darlington Train Station, locations frequented by large numbers of people. It was revealed during the hearing that Sunter had carefully planned her actions, taking advantage of the public facilities and exploiting them for her own gratification.
Pattern of Offending and Previous Convictions
The court was told that Sunter’s offending was not an isolated incident. In 2014, under her previous name John Leslie Graham, she was convicted for possession of extreme pornographic images, a serious offence that led to the imposition of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO). This order was intended to prevent her from engaging in harmful sexual behaviour, but she repeatedly violated the conditions of the order.
The SHPO explicitly prohibited her from engaging in various activities related to her previous offences. However, evidence presented in court revealed that Sunter had actively sought to circumvent these restrictions, displaying a blatant disregard for the legal limitations placed upon her.
Breaches of the Sexual Harm Prevention Order
In addition to the voyeurism charges, Sunter admitted to six breaches of her Sexual Harm Prevention Order. The breaches included:
•Using her mobile phone in incognito mode, effectively attempting to hide her internet history and any online activity that could be monitored.
•Resetting her phone to factory settings, a deliberate act to erase all previous data and avoid detection by authorities.
Further investigation of her phone uncovered 695 deleted chats, 712 photos, and four videos that had been exchanged through the gay dating app Grindr. This evidence demonstrated her continued disregard for the restrictions placed upon her by the court, and her determination to continue her illicit activities.
Prosecutor’s Statement
Paul Newcombe, representing the prosecution, detailed how Sunter operated: “Some of the males were stood at the urinals. Some were recorded under the cubicles.” The invasive and predatory nature of her actions prompted the Crown Prosecution Service to seek a substantial custodial sentence, citing the serious breach of privacy and exploitation of vulnerable individuals.
Impact of Offending and Court’s Decision
During sentencing, Judge Geoffrey Marson acknowledged the calculated nature of Sunter’s actions, describing her offences as a deliberate attempt to undermine the protective measures established by the SHPO. While he noted that she was “emotionally vulnerable” and acknowledged that imprisonment would be challenging for her, he stressed the gravity of her crimes and the harm caused to her victims.
In delivering the 26-month sentence, Judge Marson highlighted the importance of upholding the conditions of the Sexual Harm Prevention Order and the necessity of a deterrent effect to prevent further offending. The judge noted that the offences represented a clear and dangerous escalation of behaviour which required immediate and serious intervention.
Community Impact and Concerns
The case has generated considerable public outrage, particularly due to the scale of the offences and the sheer number of victims who were recorded without their knowledge or consent. The use of public toilets, areas where privacy is expected, has amplified concerns about public safety and the potential for similar offences to occur in other locations.
The revelations have also prompted discussions about the adequacy of current monitoring systems for individuals subject to Sexual Harm Prevention Orders. The fact that Sunter was able to engage in such activities over a long period despite being under legal restrictions has raised questions about the effectiveness of such orders in preventing reoffending.
Legal Implications and Future Monitoring
The case serves as a stark reminder of the challenges faced by authorities in monitoring individuals with a history of sexual offences. Despite the stringent conditions of her SHPO, Sunter was able to engage in repeated offending by manipulating technology and evading detection.
It is expected that following her release, Sunter will be subject to additional monitoring and restrictions to prevent any further offences. Authorities are also likely to review their approach to managing individuals with similar backgrounds to ensure that protective measures are robust and effective.
Conclusion
The 26-month prison sentence handed down to Sunter is intended to act as both punishment and deterrence for future offences. However, the case has highlighted significant concerns about the ability of current legal frameworks to effectively prevent repeat offending by individuals subject to Sexual Harm Prevention Orders.
As the community grapples with the revelations of the case, attention is likely to remain focused on ensuring that appropriate measures are put in place to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.
