Tattooist tells of voyeurism charge 'hell'

A TATTOIST found not guilty of voyeurism after claims that he hid a covert camera inside his shop's toilet has spoken of the “sheer hell” since his arrest.

Dave Gooderham

A TATTOIST found not guilty of voyeurism after claims that he hid a covert camera inside his shop's toilet has spoken of the “sheer hell” since his arrest.

Trevor Cadman, 48, was cleared of the one charge by magistrates who said they could not prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that the businessman had deliberately planted the technical device in the former Artworks tattoo parlour in North Street, Sudbury.

The allegations against Cadman, which date back to March of last year, had forced him to leave the market town and open up a new business in Haverhill.

You may also want to watch:

Speaking after he was found not guilty of installing equipment for the purposes of voyeurism, a relieved Cadman said: “I have always said I was innocent and now it has been proved.

“I didn't know what was going on when I was arrested - I didn't even know what voyeurism was. It has been sheer hell as people have just believed that I was guilty from the start. But my friends and family knew I was innocent and have all stuck by me. It will be nice to get back to normal.”

Most Read

Magistrates in Sudbury were told that police found the tiny hidden camera when they searched the premises on an unrelated matter in March last year.

It was said to be on the bathroom floor of the tattoo parlour pointing to the front of the toilet area.

But Cadman, who has been a tattooist for more than 30 years and lives in White Horse Avenue, Halstead, claimed his 12-year-old son might have accidentally tampered with the camera after police found it in a box of “old junk” with wires coming from it and through a hole in the wall.

A wireless device was also found in the property attached to a television but no images were ever found on the screen and the equipment was only ever studied by police away from the Sudbury business.

Pc Jon Gerrish, who investigated the incident, told the court that police thought Cadman had attempted to deliberately hide the wires but Naomi Candler, who worked as a shop receptionist, said she wasn't even aware that the camera was in the box, which she admitted kicking around on occasions when it was in the way.

Chris Peters, presiding magistrate, said: “On the face of it, we believe the equipment on the premises was set up for voyeuristic purposes.

“But we have concerns over two issues. Firstly, the equipment was not studied in situ at the time the premises were searched. There is also no evidence that the silver television would display voyeuristic images from the camera by means of a wireless device. We are unsure who set up this equipment as a number of people had regular access to all parts of the premises.”

Become a Supporter

This newspaper has been a central part of community life for many years. Our industry faces testing times, which is why we're asking for your support. Every contribution will help us continue to produce local journalism that makes a measurable difference to our community.

Become a Supporter
Comments powered by Disqus