The Law, Defences and Penalties for Peeping or Prying in New South Wales

New South Wales police arrested 64-year-old Canterbury-Bankstown man Bilaal Ahmed on Friday, 31 October 2025, following a number of peeping or prying incidents. The arrest was made under a police operation labelled Strike Force Tuclin, which was established in August 2025 after a spate of reports of peeping and prying and other sexual offences that were alleged to have occurred on Gadigal and Wangal land in Sydney’s inner western suburbs.

State law enforcement officers had been called out to a home in Harnett Avenue in the inner west of suburb Marrickville, on five separate occasions over the period from 18 May through to 21 October 2025. These incidents involved a man attempting to speak to a woman through a window of her home. The peeping tom then fled the scene prior to NSW police officers turning up on all occasions.

Another incident has involved NSW police being called out on 21 June 2025, in relation to the same issue in respect of the home of a different woman, who lives on Livingstone Road in the same suburb.

Detectives from Strike Force Tuclin were staking out the Harnett Avenue address on Tuesday 29 October at 3.30 am, when a man came down the street and allegedly entered the front yard of a house on the road and peered through a window. The officers then attempted to speak to Ahmed, prior to his fleeing. But they later apprehended him in a park, and he was in possession of a knife.

Ahmed was then hauled down to Newtown police station, where he was charged with multiple peep and pry offences, along with other crimes related to the incident. Ahmed was then granted conditional bail on 30 October, prior to being set to appear in Newtown Local Court on Tuesday, 4 November 2025.

The offence of peeping or prying in New South Wales

Ahmed has been charged with seven counts of the offence of peeping and prying, which is a crime under section 547C of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) that carries a maximum penalty of 3 months in prison and/or a fine of two penalty units, which is currently equivalent to $220.

To establish the offence, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:

1. You were in or near a building,
2. You did not have reasonable cause to be there, and
3. You were there with the intention of peeping or prying on another person.

While the legislation does not specifically define the terms ‘peeping’ or ‘prying’, the courts have found that such conduct includes looking through the window of a home or building with nefarious intentions, such as with the intention of observing a person in a state of undress or engaging in an private act (known as the offence of voyeurism if the observation is actually made), or preparing to engage in another criminal offence, such as a break and enter, robbery or assault.

What are the defences?

In addition to having to prove each of the above three ‘essential elements’ beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution must also disprove to the same high standard any legal defence that is raised by the evidence in the case.

These defences include self-defence, duress, necessity, mental illness and necessity.

The defendant must be acquitted if the prosecution is unable to negative a raised defence.

What penalties are actually imposed for peeping or prying?

According to the Judicial Commission of New South Wales,  the most common penalties imposed for peeping and prying are either a community correction order (CCO), which allows the offender to serve their time at home, or the imposition of a fine only. Around 30% of offenders are sentenced to each of these penalties, totalling around 60% of the penalties imposed for the offence.

The second most common penalty is the imposition of the less serious conditional release order (CRO), which also allows time to be served in the community. Around 15% of offenders were given this penalty. Half of these had a criminal conviction recorded against their name, while the rest had no cconviction recorded.

Other penalties for offence were a section 10A, which is where a conviction recorded but no other penalty is imposed (3.8%), while 3.8% received a prison sentence.

The other crimes on trial

Ahmed is also facing one count of dishonestly destroying or damaging property, contrary to section 197 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). This offence requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an accused destroyed property dishonestly for financial gain. The offence carries up to 7 years imprisonment.

The Canterbury-Bankstown man is further facing one count of custody of a knife in a public place, contrary to section 93IB of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). This carries up to 4 years in prison and/or a fine of $4,400. This section further stipulates that an accused can argue the defence of reasonable excuse as to why they were carrying a knife, however this cannot involve self-defence.

The final count that Ahmed is facing is hindering or resisting a police officer in the execution of duty, contrary to section 546C of the Crimes Act. This offence can comprise of resisting arrest or inciting another to assault, resist or hinder police in relation to their duties. It carries a maximum penalty of 12 months gaol time. This crime is also considered a summary offence like peep and pry.

Summary offences or lesser crimes

Prior to its repeal in 1979, the offence of peep and pry was contained in section 53 of the Summary Offences Act 1970 (NSW) (the 1970 Act). The crime then carried 3 months prison or a $200 fine. Indeed, on repeal of the 1970 summary offences legislation, a number of the lesser crimes it had contained were transferred into the Crimes Act, via the Crimes (Summary Offences) Act 1979 (NSW).

The 1970 Act had been established to consolidate various public order offences into the same piece of legislation. However, the Act led to more actions being criminalised and increased the sanctions against them. Further issues with the Act were that it criminalised numerous public acts in vague and uncertain language, which allowed for broad definition and application of these offences.

The Summary Offences (Repeal) Act 1979 (NSW) resulted in other summary offences, previously contained in the 1970 Act and not inserted into the Crimes Act, then being placed in various other pieces of legislatoin. These Acts included the Offences in Public Places Act 1979 (NSW), the Prostitution Act 1979 and the Gaming and Betting (Summary Offences) Amendment Act 1979 (NSW).

The Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW) was later enacted by NSW parliament, and it served to do the same as the 1970 Act: to take various lesser offences appearing in different legislation and bring them together under the one Act. Therefore, the 1979 Acts of parliament that were enacted to contain various summary offences in different pieces of legislation were then repealed.

Although critics of the Summary Offences Act 1988 maintain that a number of minor offences, which are charged and prosecuted in high volume every year, continue to be vaguely worded crimes, and they further lack a clear guidance on the elements needed to prove these crimes have been committed, leaving this open to various interpretations to achieve a conviction.