A CAMBRIDGE-EDUCATED doctor who was found guilty of secretly filming men in bathrooms has failed to overturn his conviction.
Earlier this year, Jurats found Diego Balassini (28) guilty of nine counts of voyeurism and was sentenced to a two-year probation order which requires him to participate in mental health treatments. Balassini was also placed on the sex offenders register.
Last week, the Court of Appeal upheld his conviction.
Balassini was training as a doctor at the Hospital and had hoped to complete a doctorate at Oxford University but was suspended from practicing as a doctor in the UK following his conviction.
His offending came to light when a gymgoer caught Balassini filming him in a changing room and confronted him. The gymgoer found footage of himself naked on Balassini’s phone and police arrested Balassini shortly after.
Videos found on his phone showed that the doctor had also filmed men urinating in two town bars and at Jersey Airport – positioning himself at the urinal and filming both himself and others in the background.
Snapchat conversations and internet search terms also showed a sexual interest in urination, according to the prosecution – with search terms referring specifically to urination filmed in secret.
For Balassini to be found guilty, he had to take the videos with the purpose of “obtaining sexual gratification”. He argued that he suffered from complex mental health issues and had dissociated when he took the recordings.
Appealing against the conviction this week, Balassini’s lawyer Advocate Stephen Baker argued that an expert psychologist’s evidence was dismissed too easily and that the judge had an “overall imbalance” in his interventions.
Though it felt that there was “some force” in the argument, the Court of Appeal in rejecting Balassini’s appeal, said: “In the circumstances of this case, there is no difficulty. The evidence as a whole showed that sexual gratification as a purpose was possible, not unlikely.”
This, the judgment continued, did not stop the Jurats from finding that he did do it for sexual gratification, and their conclusion was “entirely unsurprising”.
Advocate Baker also argued that the indictment did not mention that the offence included observing or looking at images, and that Balassini had deleted four videos without watching them.
The Court of Appeal said that missing out those words “is regrettable and should not be replicated in future cases”, stressing the importance of “precision” – but found that Balassini was not at a disadvantage.
Jonathan Crow CVO KC was presiding, with David Perry KC and Roddy Dunlop KC.
