Court busts ‘peeping Tom’

A FORMER Swakopmund gym owner accused of secretly videotaping female clients was yesterday found guilty on five charges of crimen injuria by the Swakopmund Magistrate’s Court.

The ‘peeping Tom’ trial concluded with Magistrate Vicky Nicolaidis sentencing Heinz Laube (31) to a fine of N$5 000 or 30 months behind bars. Laube has been in and out of court since August 2005, when he was arrested for filming women and young girls while they were showering or changing clothes in the women’s dressing room at the gym.Defence lawyer Sacky Amoomo told The Namibian late yesterday that his client was considering appealing against both the verdict and sentence.”You are very lucky,” Magistrate Nicolaidis told Laube before handing down the sentence.”You were in a position of trust and you abused it,” she said.”The footage was recorded in a place where one would expect some privacy.”Four of the five victims were young girls who testified that they had felt, degraded, violated and their dignity infringed upon.”Though the testimony of some State witnesses was inconsistent, there was clear evidence that he was routinely absent whenever the girls went to the dressing room and specifically on the day that the girls became aware of being watched, the Magistrate said.It was also proven that recording took place over a period of time, the camera belonged to the accused and it was operated by someone.Though Laube subsequently claimed his camera was stolen, he failed to lay any charge of theft, the Magistrate noted.Six of the 10 State witnesses said they had seen footage of Laube’s family on the video and although it was not seen by the court, the Magistrate accepted their testimony as true and did not consider it to be hearsay.Prosecutor Heidi Jacobs asked the Magistrate to impose a jail sentence of six months for each of the five charges.”The fact that four of the five complainants were between the ages of 13 and 15, the crime merits punishment in the interest of society,” said Jacobs.”The accused never showed any sign of remorse and chose not to testify in his own defence.His personal circumstances are not the only factor to consider.”Law and order must be upheld,” Jacobs said.Arguing for a lenient sentence, defence lawyer Amoomo submitted that Laube was a first-time offender and had already spent 21 days in jail after his arrest.It should serve as mitigation that the video was not copied or distributed by his client.Further, he was the father of two children, aged two and five, and his wife was pregnant with twins.His client was unemployed and working part time as a fitness consultant, Amoomo said.”The interest of society will not be best served by a harsh punishment, though the crime is serious.”It should be blended with mercy,” Amoomo argued.Laube has been in and out of court since August 2005, when he was arrested for filming women and young girls while they were showering or changing clothes in the women’s dressing room at the gym.Defence lawyer Sacky Amoomo told The Namibian late yesterday that his client was considering appealing against both the verdict and sentence.”You are very lucky,” Magistrate Nicolaidis told Laube before handing down the sentence. “You were in a position of trust and you abused it,” she said.”The footage was recorded in a place where one would expect some privacy.”Four of the five victims were young girls who testified that they had felt, degraded, violated and their dignity infringed upon.”Though the testimony of some State witnesses was inconsistent, there was clear evidence that he was routinely absent whenever the girls went to the dressing room and specifically on the day that the girls became aware of being watched, the Magistrate said.It was also proven that recording took place over a period of time, the camera belonged to the accused and it was operated by someone.Though Laube subsequently claimed his camera was stolen, he failed to lay any charge of theft, the Magistrate noted.Six of the 10 State witnesses said they had seen footage of Laube’s family on the video and although it was not seen by the court, the Magistrate accepted their testimony as true and did not consider it to be hearsay.Prosecutor Heidi Jacobs asked the Magistrate to impose a jail sentence of six months for each of the five charges.”The fact that four of the five complainants were between the ages of 13 and 15, the crime merits punishment in the interest of society,” said Jacobs.”The accused never showed any sign of remorse and chose not to testify in his own defence.His personal circumstances are not the only factor to consider.”Law and order must be upheld,” Jacobs said.Arguing for a lenient sentence, defence lawyer Amoomo submitted that Laube was a first-time offender and had already spent 21 days in jail after his arrest.It should serve as mitigation that the video was not copied or distributed by his client.Further, he was the father of two children, aged two and five, and his wife was pregnant with twins.His client was unemployed and working part time as a fitness consultant, Amoomo said.”The interest of society will not be best served by a harsh punishment, though the crime is serious.”It should be blended with mercy,” Amoomo argued.