Kirk Bishop, 40, pictured, was sentenced by the Royal Court for seven counts of trespassing and one count of burglary, for which he received six years in prison for each offence, to be served concurrently.
The Magistrate’s Court sentenced him on nine summary offences of voyeurism. He received two years in prison for each offence, to be served concurrently, but consecutively to the Royal Court sentence.
Judge Russell Finch described the facts of the case as ‘both distinctly unusual and distinctly unpleasant’.
‘I have 52 years of experience in the courtroom as an advocate and a judge and recollect only two similar cases, neither of which were on the scale of what we have today,’ he said.
‘These are wicked and depraved offences and you have left lasting consequences on those affected.
‘The offences were repeated, and violated the privacy of people’s homes and recorded intimate and private acts for your own gratification.’
He offered his sympathies to the victims.
Bishop’s offending first came to light in September last year when a couple, referred to as Mr A and Ms B, returned home one evening to find him emerging from their bedroom.
Ms B screamed, while Mr A chased Bishop outside and had a confrontation with him in the street, where Bishop swung a wooden plank at him.
With assistance from a member of the public, Bishop was restrained and police were called.
The defendant said that burglary was ‘not his thing’, he was a family man and had been looking for a toilet.
A Samsung phone was found in the road and Bishop’s car was located at Beau Sejour.
An iPhone was found in the car, along with a pair of women’s underwear in the glove compartment.
Ms B confirmed that they were hers, that they could only have been taken from inside the home and it was established that there was at least one other occasion that Bishop had entered the property.
In a victim impact statement, she said that she could not get the image of Bishop in her home out of her head. She felt violated when she should feel safe in her home and would not be staying alone for some time.
Mr A said that he did not think this type of thing happened in Guernsey and had considered stopping night shifts so his girlfriend did not have to be alone.
A number of videos were found of several couples having sex on Bishop’s devices.
A total of 121 voyeurism videos were found on the Samsung, 60 of which were of Mr A and Ms B, at least three of which had been filmed from inside their home through a gap in the bedroom door.
Ten other victims were identified.
There was a single video taken from inside a property in April 2025 of Ms C, and a single video of Ms D.
On the iPhone, 11 voyeurism videos and images identified an additional victim, and further videos of Ms C were located.
She had made two reports to the police prior to Bishop being arrested as she believed that someone had entered her address.
She returned home one evening and, following a shower, sat on her bed in her towel. As she took off the towel, she noticed a phone being held around the bedroom door.
After contacting the police, Bishop could not be identified at the time, which led to another suspect being detained for three days and released without charge.
Ms C was later linked to Bishop’s offending from the videos of her on his devices and traces of his DNA in her home.
She said that since then she has felt scared and vulnerable and has considered moving address permanently.
Ms D was identified during the police investigation from a still image from an officer who knew her.
She was filmed naked in the shower from inside her property.
She said that she was extremely uncomfortable and her privacy had been violated. She was upset and shaken that someone had entered her home.
When the defendant was arrested, police told him they had found the images, to which he responded: ‘Have you? I’ll go with trespassing but didn’t intend to steal anything.’
He maintained his right to silence during interview, but later said: ‘I’m sorry to everyone who has been affected by this, I’m truly sorry.’
The offending is thought to have mostly taken place in 2024 and 2025, however when Ms E identified herself in an image taken by Bishop, she was able to date it back to 2022 based on her hairstyle at the time.
Images of her were taken through the window.
Ms F and Mr G were the subject of 22 images from various times, taken through a bedroom or living room window and while they were engaging in sexual activity.
Ms F said the incident left her feeling scared, upset and unprotected.
Eighteen images of Ms H and Mr I having sex were found across Bishop’s devices, filmed from outside their home.
The couple said that they vaguely knew Bishop, describing him as a ‘passing acquaintance’.
Ms J and Mr K were identified as being in Bishop’s images and three videos. Mr K said he knew Bishop through his brother.
Four videos and an image were found of Ms L in her home while she was in the shower. She did not know Bishop, nor that the videos were taken.
Ms M was recorded in one video taken from outside her home through a gap in the curtains.
Ms N, who is friends with Ms B, had heard about the incident when Bishop was found inside Mr A and Ms B’s home.
She did not know at the time that she too was a victim. She had been filmed through the bathroom window and said that Bishop must have been crouched on the roof in order to capture her in the shower.
Bishop was also charged with voyeurism by means of upskirting.
A video found on his devices showed the front of a shop, and then moved to under a woman’s skirt showing her underwear.
The victim and the exact location have not been identified.
Defending, Advocate Sam Steel said his client’s behaviour escalated from observation to entry and theft and the recording and retaining of images, however there was no sharing of the images in private groups or on social media.
There was no evidence of anti-social, psychopathic or sadistic behaviour, and it was loss of control rather than predatory violence.
Bishop said he accepts meaningful change is required, and that trust is rebuilt over time. He was ashamed of himself and the fear he has caused.
Advocate Steel said that the case had attracted an unusual amount of media attention and his client will already have that for the rest of his life and will never be able to shed the shame of his convictions.
Bishop had previous convictions, such as death caused by dangerous driving, theft and using threatening behaviour, but none of sexual nature.
In total, Bishop was sentenced to eight years in prison dating back to his remand in custody last September, an extended sentence for five years and a notification period for 10 years, with the added condition not to own or use any device with a camera.
