A man described by a judge as a 'classic Peeping Tom' has been sentenced to three years in prison for filming women and girls with a hidden camera and using artificial intelligence to create naked images of underage teenagers.
Secret Camera in Changing Rooms and Bedrooms
Thomas Milton, 32, from Clive Road in Eston, was found guilty of five counts of voyeurism. Durham Crown Court heard how the technician hid a spy camera, purchased from a TikTok shop, in changing rooms. He recorded women and girls as young as 14 without their knowledge.
Prosecutor Charlie Thompson told the court Milton was caught after the concealed device was discovered. The offending extended to private homes, where he filmed two women. On one occasion at Teesside Crown Court, it was revealed he hid the same camera in a woman's bedroom twice, capturing her undressing.
AI Used to Manipulate 'Innocent' Social Media Photos
The court heard on Monday, December 15, 2025, that Milton's crimes had a disturbing digital element. On three separate occasions, he took clothed photographs of teenage girls from their social media profiles. He then used AI software to generate naked images of them.
Milton admitted to making indecent pseudo-photographs of children. During his trial, he claimed he hid the camera for the 'thrill' and not for sexual gratification. Sentencing judge Richard Bennett dismissed this as 'palpable nonsense'.
Life-Long Order and Victim Impact
Appearing via video link from Holme House Prison, Milton was jailed for three years. Judge Bennett imposed a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for life, which will restrict his contact with children and his use of the internet and social media.
One victim, reading her impact statement in court, said: 'It doesn't feel real. I felt sick, violated and utterly disgusted. I still get flashbacks. I was unable to sleep and eat for weeks and became very unwell. I will never forgive him for what he has done.'
Judge Bennett told Milton: 'You are clearly highly intelligent but equally manipulative, deviant and dishonest.' He added that the case highlighted the real danger of posting innocent images of children online, as they can be manipulated by those with a sexual interest in children.
