header-logo header-logo

06 May 2015 / Samantha Pegg
Categories: Opinion
printer mail-detail

Flawed law

The new “revenge porn” offence is only a partial solution, says Samantha Pegg

The disclosure of private sexual images, particularly by aggrieved ex-partners, is not a new phenomenon, but their ubiquitous presence on the internet has made it all the more galling for victims. Is the new “revenge porn” offence really the best way of preventing victimisation or is it an easy answer to a complex problem?

As has been recognised by various commentators victims of revenge porn already have civil remedies available to them and disclosing a pornographic image may also be an offence under the Communications Act 2003 or the Malicious Communications Act 1988. Disclosing or threatening to disclose private sexual images can also amount to an offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 where there is a course of conduct. 

The new “revenge porn” offence at s 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 is actually titled the rather less snappy “disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress” and requires the disclosure of these images to someone

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll