A care home employee from North Somerset will not face jail despite spying on a friend getting changed at work.

The man from Portishead pleaded guilty to voyeurism at North Somerset Courthouse on July 18.

The court was told the man had used his mobile to record his colleague getting changed in the staff changing rooms at a care home on February 28.

Prosecutor Joanna Packer told the court: “The victim and the defendant knew each other and had been friends for a number of years.

“They were good friends and the victim even helped get the defendant a job.”

Ms Packer said the victim had gone into a work cubicle to get changed when she noticed a rucksack and telephone on the floor.

She added: “She looked through the phone and found up to 100 images of herself and video clips of her getting dressed.”

In a statement, the victim said: “Since I found the defendant recording me, and the photos, I have been suffering with stress and anxiety and I cannot get away from the idea that the images are still out there and can be accessed at any time as he is a computer whizz.

“I do not want him to lay eyes on me ever again.

“I got him a job and this is the thanks I get. It makes me feel sick.”

In March, the police arrested and interviewed the defendant where he admitted to positioning the phone.

He told the police over the course of their friendship he would look through images for his own sexual gratification and would also take photos of her cleavage when possible.

He said he was aware what he was doing was a criminal offence and was ‘disgusted’ with his behaviour.

He added: “It was a stupid decision and I deeply regret what I have done.”

He was handed a two-year suspended sentence, ordered to complete a 60-day rehabilitation requirement and complete 180 hours of unpaid work.

The magistrates filed a two-year long restraining order too, preventing him being allowed to make contact with the victim.

He was ordered to pay £500 to the victim, £85 in costs and £115 victim surcharge.

Victims of sexual offences are entitled to anonymity and the Times has chosen not to name the criminal to ensure his victim cannot be identified.