In April 2015 the government introduced via the Criminal Courts and Justice Act 2015 a criminal offence of “revenge porn” that is it is an offence to disclose private sexual photographs if it is done (A) without the consent of the individual or (B) with the intent to cause distress.
A Freedom of Information application made in October of this year has revealed that within the first 6 months of the creation of this offence 175 victims have contacted 18 police forces of England and Wales to report that their private photographs have been shared without their consent.
Amongst those recorded as making allegations are victims aged between 12 and 58. The vast majority of the cases involved explicit pictures of women being shared by their male ex-partners without their permission.
It is reported that one ongoing investigation by Humberside Police involved a schoolboy who was alleged to have shared an explicit video of his ex-girlfriend online. Police notes record that the schoolgirl “had not given consent for it to be shared with other students”.
It is worth of note that the statistics only represent reporting from a third of police forces in England and Wales, excluding the 2 biggest forces in the UK, the Metropolitan Police and West Midlands Police.
There is significant concern that victims are being discouraged from reporting however because unlike victims of other sexual offences people who are the subject of “revenge porn” are not granted lifelong anonymity under the new law.
A victim of “revenge porn” Keeley Richards-Shaw has spoken out calling upon MPs to change the law so that “revenge porn” victims can be given automatic anonymity in order to protect them from unwanted attention.
Ms Richards-Shaw was victimised when her estranged boyfriend Alec Brewer sent naked pictures of her which he had taken secretly to his new girlfriend.
Mr Brewer was given a suspended jail sentence. However Ms Richards-Shaw felt that the fact that she was publicly named and pictured simply increased the embarrassment and distress that she felt.
Her campaign is being supported by the North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner Julie Mulligan is reported saying “It is not right that victims of very personal, very distressing crimes can then be violated again by stories being played out in public.”
There is a suggestion that currently 1 in 5 “revenge porn cases” end up being dropped because the victim does not support further police action which may well be caused because the victim fears that they will lose their anonymity and will be “named and shamed” in the press.
From the statistics whilst it appears the new legislation is being actively pursued and implemented and there may be some satisfaction in the punishment of offenders the Act does not prevent the publication of the intimate photographs and the embarrassment shame and distress which publication brings with it.
It is possible to pursue civil injunctions to prevent publication of photographs and videos but in advance of their publication with the breach of such an injunction potentially leading to the punishment of the offender not only through the new “revenge porn” legislation but also for contempt of court, it remains the case that the only way of guaranteeing that intimate photographs and videos are not published is to prevent them being taken or sent in the first place.
Peter Marshall is a partner in our family law team in St Austell. If you have any concerns with what’s been covered in this article or have any other family law issues, please contact the team on 01726 74433 or family.staustell@stephens-scown.co.uk.