22MOON.COM
You can see the whole Earth from the Moon!

Richie MacRichie “just stuck it under”. That’s his story and he’s sticking to it.

 

Solicitor acquitted of

voyeurism back in court

 

Thursday, June 05, 2008

THE BELEFAST TELEGRAPH

A solicitor cleared of voyeurism after admitting to filming a woman in a changing area said he would be “raging” if anyone took footage of his girlfriend, judges heard yesterday.

Richie MacRitchie (32) was acquitted despite accepting that he used his mobile phone to record four clips of her wearing a bikini in a cubicle at a west Belfast leisure centre.

Lawyers challenging the decision of Resident Magistrate Fiona Bagnall to dismiss the charge said the woman claimed a fifth attempt was made to film her after she changed into underpants.

Mr MacRitchie, who practices in Belfast and lives at Ardmullan, Omeath, Co Louth, denied recording a private act for sexual gratification.


The allegation against him centred on an incident in October 2006 when the woman told staff at the mixed changing area she saw a man holding a mobile phone under her cubicle.

Although Mrs Bagnall said she was satisfied the prosecution had made a case that the images were recorded for sexual gratification, she held that the woman was not engaged in a private act according to the Sexual Offences Act.


Her ruling last October was based on an acceptance that the woman was wearing a bikini at the time she was filmed.

Contesting that decision before the Court of Appeal, Gerald Simpson QC, for the prosecution, said recordings were made four times without the woman’s knowledge.

“There was then apparently a fifth occasion when she had changed into her pants when she saw the camera,” Mr Simpson said.

Parts of the woman’s statement were read out:

“I reached down for my socks, and as I reached down I saw a person holding a black Samsung-style of mobile phone. The phone and his hand were inside my cubicle.”

During police interviews Mr MacRitchie said he made two or three recordings, each for “only a couple of seconds”.

He said he didn’t know why it had happened, adding:

“I wasn’t thinking clearly at all, I just stuck it under.”

Mr MacRitchie accepted it was a foolish act and stressed he was in a relationship.

“Of course if it was my fiancee or my wee girl I would be raging,” he said during an interview.

Judgment was reserved in the case, which was heard by a panel headed by Lord Chief Justice Sir Brian Kerr.

8 Responses to “Richie MacRichie “just stuck it under”. That’s his story and he’s sticking to it.”

  1. that bastard macrichie should be hung. he’s a fucking pervert

  2. i wonder was he really filming the 3 year old who was in the cubicle at the same time. seems to me he’s happy to take the rap of filming a teenager as long as the child is forgot about because that would’nt go down too well with his mates now would it

  3. I think it’s unbelievable that the charges against MacRichies was dropped and that he was not brought up on a more serious charge!…If anyone enters a cubicle, no matter where it is and closes the door then that should be regarded as privacy, and anyone within that cubicle is indeed engaged in a private act, otherwise why would there be a door or a cubicle for that matter in the first instance…Also, as there was a young infant who was also being undressed and dressed this incident has very serious connotations… the fact that MacRitchie admitted that he took footage (he was caught red handed and held and the evidence was there, so he had to) for sexual gratification would suggest that this has been done before… because it takes more than an impulse to cross the line and do something as brazen as that…this was a criminal act and should have been dealt with accordingly… Mr MacRitchie should not only have been required to sign the Sex Offenders Register but also struck off! – This man should never have the opportunity to become a Magistrate/Judge!…I have no idea what the Magistrate was thinking of at the time, if she herself were in any sort of a changing cubicle would she not believe she was entitled to the privacy it deemed to provide and in removing her clothes in that cubicle would she not be engaged in a private act! I rest my case!

  4. i knew richard years ago and he’s a really sweet guy, i’m sure all this is a terrible misunderstanding. He was actually the first man i had sex with and he treated me very kindly. if he wants to join me i met him at edinburgh and i am french.
    nothing like that would have happened in france. I hope he is well and he has all my support.
    soph.

  5. D.STRAUSS-KAHN IS INNOCENT
    WHAT ABOUT RICHARD?
    SOPHIE PANTALACCI

  6. Dominique Strauss_Kahn is not guilty.
    What about Richard?

  7. sophie pantalacci

  8. “It’s getting hard to be someone but it all works out
    It doesn’t matter much to me…..”


Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: