How do you measure the financial impact of what was once known as ‘revenge pornography’?
The High Court in London recently assessed damages in a case of image-based abuse.
Background
The Claimant lived with the Defendant. They had been in a relationship since March 2016. In October 2017, she found a tiny camera concealed in their bathroom.
The Defendant had been uploading images of the Claimant onto a pornographic website. These images were accompanied by a photograph of her face.
In September 2020, the Defendant was convicted of voyeurism and other sexual offences. A two-year suspended sentence was imposed, and he was ordered to sign the Sex Offenders Register for ten years.
The Claimant suffered chronic PTSD and issued civil proceedings against the Defendant. A default judgement was entered in June 2021.
Judgment
At the outset, Mrs Justice Thornton observed that to use the term’ revenge porn’ to describe the Defendant’s conduct would be to imply that “…a victim somehow deserved what happened to them”. The description adopted by the Court was, therefore, ‘image-based abuse’.
Aggravating features include the needless uploading of a photograph of the Claimant’s face onto the pornographic website and the evidence that indicates the Defendant obtained payment for the images.
per Thornton J at [57]
Conclusion
The Claimant was awarded £60,000 for “pain, suffering and loss of amenity” with special damages of £37,041.61 for her “consequential financial losses” to include psychiatric treatment and the costs of removing the images from the internet.