Farleys successfully represented a client in a ground-breaking claim for ‘revenge porn’, securing £100,000 in damages for the victim. In this claim, Justice Thornton criticised the term ‘revenge porn’, stating that the phrase ‘conveys the impression that a victim somehow deserved what happened to them’. This has highlighted the need for a shift in language from ‘revenge porn’ to image-based abuse.

Image-based abuse or ‘revenge porn’ is when someone shares sexually explicit images or videos of another person without their consent, with the aim of causing them distress or harm.

The rise of social media and the dominance of the digital world necessitated such laws, and image-based abuse was made an offence under Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Court Act 2015.

However, when considering this bill, much of the rhetoric used by the Government and proponents of the new law referred to it as ‘revenge porn’. Indeed, much of the Government information on these laws still refer to it as ‘revenge porn’.

This terminology has been regarded as problematic, given that the definition of ‘revenge’ is ‘the action of hurting or harming someone in return for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands’. This language suggests that there is justification for the sharing of images, and reflects the prevalence of victim blaming in sexual abuse claims. It cannot be ignored that this is gendered harm, where the Revenge Porn Helpline records that over 75% of cases involve a female victim, and often women feel the burden of protecting themselves from sexual offences.

The laws on ‘revenge porn’ came as a response to debate that focused almost exclusively on cases of a former partner sharing images without consent. The recent well-known criminal trial involving celebrities Stephen Bear and Georgia Harrison highlights this, where the image-based abuse took place following the ending of their relationship. As a result of this, Bear was handed a 21-month sentence on 3rd March 2023.

Ruby Peacock’s article for the UK Human Rights Blog (run by 1 Crown Office Row) touches upon this, where it is noted that one of the requirements for a prosecution of image-based abuse is that it was done ‘with the intention of causing that individual distress’ (Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, section 33(1)(b)). This can be difficult to prove, and raises the threshold for victims securing justice. For victims, it should be enough that they have experienced distress as a result of the crime, regardless of the perpetrators intention.

Image-based abuse takes place for a range of perpetrators motivations, and not just ‘revenge’. In her 2021 BBC documentary, celebrity influencer Zara McDermott disclosed that she had been the victim of image-based abuse, however she could not say whether the perpetrator had done so with the intention of causing harm. The documentary also explored threats of image-based abuse, with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 amending legislation to the effect that threats to disclose intimate images will also be an offence. The term ‘revenge porn’ can hardly be used in these instances to correctly describe the offences committed. Instead, image-based abuse is far more encompassing.

In a research spotlight from Birmingham Law School, Clare McGlynn and Erika Rackley explored this in 2016. They argue that the main purpose of the criminal law is to condemn specific activities with the hope of changing people’s behaviour. The language used, therefore, is incredibly important, and they argue that the law can only achieve its purpose if the label applied if the right one. This too should be applied to civil claims relating to image-based abuse.

In light of the recent civil claim and changes to legislation, the shift in language to image-based abuse is welcomed as a small, but important step in recognising the offences and civil wrongs for what they are.

To discuss the possibility of making a claim for image-based abuse in confidence, please call our dedicated abuse line on 0330 134 6430, contact us by email, or use the online chat below.