A MOTHER whose partner took a semi-naked photograph of her while she slept is calling for a change in the law — after he was cleared by a court of voyeurism.

Adele Greasley was sleeping in the bedroom of her Halliwell home when her then boyfriend Wayne Gornall took the topless snap of her.

During a two-day trial at Bolton Crown Court she told a jury how he later showed her the picture but refused her request to delete it, telling: “I like it.”

After the couple split in October, 2014 Mrs Greasley says she was alarmed when Mr Gornall sent her 12-year-old son an inappropriate photograph of her in fancy dress.

Concerned that he may still have the naked picture of her, she contacted the police.

Mr Gornall, of Chorley Old Road, Bolton, was charged with voyeurism, an offence which more commonly used to convict 'peeping Toms' or people who install secret cameras in changing rooms or toilets.

However, the trial was halted after Judge Graeme Smith accepted an application from Mr Gornall's legal team.

Defence lawyers argued that there was no case to answer as Mr Gornall had not broken any law when he took the photograph and then saved it on his smartphone.

The judge directed the jury to find him not guilty.

For an offence of voyeurism to be committed, the act being observed needs to be a private one and it must be observed for the purpose of sexual gratification.

Judge Smith said that, as Mrs Greasley and Mr Gornall were in an intimate relationship at the time and they were used to seeing each other unclothed, the bedroom was not a private place for Mrs Greasley from her partner.

There was also no evidence that 46-year-old Mr Gornall had obtained sexual gratification from taking or looking at the photograph.

Following the trial, Mrs Greasley, a 47-year-old bar manager, has now waived her right to anonymity in order to speak out and call for the law to be changed to protect others like herself who have intimate photographs of themselves taken without their knowledge or permission.

Mum-of-two Mrs Greasley said she was horrified when Mr Gornall showed her the topless photograph of herself sleeping.

She said: “I felt violated. I was disgusted. Why would he feel the need to take that picture?”

Divorcee Mrs Greasley told how she first met Mr Gornall in the summer of 2013 via a mutual friend on Facebook and they quickly became a couple.

She said: “When you start out on a relationship you’re in a kind of bubble. For the first six months it was lovely.”

But the relationship ended just under a year and a half later and she subsequently became worried about photographs of her Mr Gornall may still have.

There is no suggestion that Mr Gornall has distributed any photographs of Mrs Greasley, which would have been a separate criminal offence.

But Mrs Greasley is frustrated that there appears to be nothing people can do to force former partners to delete intimate images which were taken without their consent.

She added: “It is wrong. There are no laws to cover this.

“How do you know that they are not going to end up floating around on the internet somewhere?”

Solicitor advocate Nicholas Ross, who defended Mr Gornall, said the decision to clear him was correct and, if he had been convicted, it would have set a dangerous precedent.

He said: “Any attempt to extend the criminal laws into the sanctity of the private bedroom would be outrageous.

“It could open the floodgates — bringing the criminal law into a couple’s relationship.

“This wasn’t a case of a dirty old man peering into the changing rooms.

“Legislation isn’t there to deal with privacy in a bedroom.”

A spokesman from the Crown Prosecution Service said care had been taken when deciding whether to proceed with the prosecution of Mr Gornall.

He said: “This case was considered very carefully by a specialist sexual offences lawyer and prosecution counsel before the trial.

"We were satisfied on the evidence we had that there was sufficient evidence for an offence of voyeurism to be put before a jury, but the judge concluded, after hearing the prosecution case, that all the elements of the offence had not been made out and that the case should not proceed further. "After consideration we decided not to appeal that decision.

"We take all allegations of sexual offences very seriously and always consider them carefully before reaching decisions about prosecution.”