header-logo header-logo

Flawed law

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

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

Slater Heelis—Chester office

Slater Heelis—Chester office

North West presence strengthened with Chester office launch

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Firm grows commercial disputes expertise with partner promotion

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

NEWS
The House of Lords has set up a select committee to examine assisted dying, which will delay the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
back-to-top-scroll