Photographer’s appeal following model’s claims he pressured her to strip naked
A photographer has successfully revoked the recording of his conviction after he inappropriately touched a young Brisbane model, who claimed she left the industry after he pressured her to take her clothes off.
Police & Courts
Don't miss out on the headlines from Police & Courts. Followed categories will be added to My News.
A photographer has successfully revoked the recording of his conviction after he inappropriately touched a young Brisbane model, who claimed she left the industry after he pressured her to take her clothes off.
Amateur photographer Sukesh Ranjan Roy was fined $1500 at Brisbane District Court in March after pleading guilty to one charge of common assault.
He had originally been charged with sexual assault, but that charge was discontinued.
Roy’s victim, who was in her early 20s, said she had left the modelling industry after Roy pressured her into taking off her clothes and touched her inappropriately at a photo shoot.
The court was told Roy had met the young woman over an online platform, and that they had arranged a photo shoot at a bushland location at Mount Coot-Tha in 2021.
After taking photos in a variety of outfits on the day, the woman “reluctantly” agreed to wearing a corset and underwear, the court heard.
The woman expressed she was not “comfortable” to be photographed completely naked, but “eventually relented,” appeal documents reveal.
Roy placed fake flowers over the model’s private areas, and slowly ran fingers up her stomach without her consent – resulting in her “fabricating” an excuse to leave, the court was told.
The woman told the court in a victim impact statement that she had done the photoshoot to build up her self confidence, but that Roy’s actions had made her feel “disgusting”.
“Aside from never working in the modelling or performing arts industry, as has long been my aspiration, I can no longer have my picture taken by another person without recalling this incident,” she wrote.
“I can’t look into a camera lens without feeling a strong sense of panic … I will also never enjoy the beauty of any botanic garden again because it makes me sick to think about them.”
At the time of sentence, the court heard Roy was an IT professional and no longer engaged in photography.
It was submitted that recording a conviction would affect his prospects of employment.
But Judge Tony Moynihan decided to record a conviction against Roy regardless.
“The victim has suffered harm and been adversely affected as a result of your offending,” he said.
On Friday, Roy successfully appealed this decision to record a conviction.
He submitted that a number of contracts he was involved in required him to comply with a criminal history check, and that it was a significant drain on his family’s income for him to be out of work.
Presiding over the appeal, Justice John Bond said Judge Moynihan had not given adequate reasoning for his decision to record a conviction.
He noted Judge Moynihan did not specifically address the impact that recording a conviction might have on Roy’s economic or social wellbeing or chances of finding employment.
Justice Bond said the offending itself was “difficult” to view as a “particularly serious example” of common assault, given the Crown had dropped any allegation of there being a sexual element to it.
He noted Roy had no criminal history and said there was “no reason to think that he posed any on-going risk to the community”.
Justice Bond ordered that the conviction against Roy not be recorded.
The original fine still stands.