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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll