Revenge porn offenders not getting off scot-free

With the first person convicted of sharing revenge porn sentenced this month, it is timely to reflect on how the courts have been responding to perpetrators. 

Although popularly termed ‘revenge porn’, this offence criminalises the distribution of private sexual images where ?the image has been disclosed without the permission of the person featured and with the intention of causing distress. The maximum sentence for the offence is two years’ imprisonment.

The first offender to be convicted, Jason Asagba, had pleaded guilty in May 2015. Asagba had taken intimate pictures of his girlfriend while she slept, and shared them widely, including texting them directly to members of her family. He received a six-month jail sentence, suspended for 18 months, with 100 hours unpaid work and a restraining order also imposed. 

This sentence is in line with others we have seen handed down. In addition to custodial or community sentences, most offenders have also been fined, and valuable use is being made of restraining orders. ?For example, Paul Marquis ?was sentenced to an 18-week suspended sentence for disclosing a private photograph, and Nathan Staples to a 12-month community order, with 60 hours of unpaid work. Clayton Kennedy was sentenced to a 12-month community order and given an indefinite restraining order for posting an intimate picture of his ex-girlfriend on Facebook. 

Some offenders have received immediate custody, including David Jones, who received a 16-week sentence for posting a number of photographs online, and Sean Pinkney, who received 20 weeks’ imprisonment and a three-year restraining order for posting a single photograph that he requested people share. 

Of course, there had been convictions for sharing intimate photographs before we had this offence. In 2014, Thomas Samuel pleaded guilty to an offence under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 after posting explicit photographs of his ex-girlfriend online, and received the maximum sentence allowable of six months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years. ?In January 2015, Kevin Howlett was convicted under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 for sending naked pictures of his ex-girlfriend to contacts on her mobile phone. Howlett received a 12-month supervision order and was ordered to carry out 60 hours of unpaid work. 

The new offence was an attempt to tighten up this ?area of the law, giving prosecutors a targeted offence that recognises the harm victims suffer. In this sense it has worked, with informal figures suggesting victims are now coming forward. 

However, the strong response promised by the government has perhaps created an expectation of immediate and lengthy custodial sentences, and some newspapers have predictably reported that these sentences show offenders are ‘getting off’ and ‘walking free’.

When an offence is as broad as this one, there will be significant variances in the sentences handed down. Asagba provides a valuable example of an offender at the upper end of culpability who has been sentenced appropriately. There are currently no sentencing guidelines. The courts continue to make use of suspended and community sentences when responding to this behaviour and, given our already overcrowded prison estate, ?this is a sensible approach. SJ

Dr Samantha Pegg is a senior lecturer in law at Nottingham Law School, Nottingham Trent University @LawNLS www.ntu.ac.uk/nls