Technically it is a correct application of the law, behaviour which would be considered immoral and that causes distress constitutes a breach of the peace. It all comes down to the attitude of the judge though, in this case Sheriff Hogg seemed to be on a bit of a crusade.
At the same time, I am fairly sure the statement that "the lady concerned was entitled to her privacy" has no legal standing, and in my opinion would probably have made for good grounds for an appeal had he not pleaded guilty. The crime here was his actions which were considered detrimental to the state, not that her rights were being violated.
Pete wrote in post #6436015
I think it's pretty clear about what's appropriate and what's not. If you see someone in the street who's obviously in distress, then it's just not on to stand there and photograph them in that state.
What if he was a photojournalist? What of those who report on accidents or wars shooting people in distress? Surely it depends on what you do with the photos, does moral right differs if you are going for art or documentary rather than something more youtube-esque?
I am not saying that those necessarily apply here, only that it is not such a black and white issue.
And what even constitutes distress anyway? According to the story she only went out for air, is that distress? How do you tell that from someone just leaning back against a wall waiting for someone? There really is not enough information in that story for any of us to be able to make a judgement on the situation.
But still, Sheriff Hogg!