LEGAL UPDATE: Tough Order in Revenge Porn Case

16-10-2015

On Saturday 10 October 2015 Mr Justice Popplewell granted an interim non-disclosure order restraining the disclosure or publication of images and information in a "revenge porn" case. 

The Claimant was described as "a successful professional actor", known for the purposes of this case as "JPH".

JPH was in a relationship with the Defendant "XYZ" for a few of months, during which time photographs and videos were taken portraying "nudity and sexual activity".

JPH brought the relationship to an end and on 9 October 2015,  XYZ threatened to post the images on social media and/or have them published in magazines. 

JPH's application to the Court was made without XYZ being aware of it. The judge said that "there were compelling reasons for doing so", although the hearing was held in public. The judge also ordered that the confidential material on the Court file was to be kept in a sealed envelope not to be opened except by or with the permission of a High Court Judge, to preserve the anonymity of the parties.

The judge found that JPH had a strong case for asserting his rights to respect for his private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judge also considred the right to freedom of expression of XYZ under Article 10 of the ECHR, but found in JPH's favour, largely it seems because the threatened publication was motivated by revenge and possibly blackmail. 

The judge was satisfied that the dissemination of the sexually explicit material would be emotionally and financially damaging to JPH, and that damages would not be an adequate remedy. 

It was ordered that publication of the images should not be allowed and an order was granted restraining publication and disclosure. In an incredibly tough order, the judge said that within one hour of being made aware of the order by email, XYZ should provide information to JPH's solicitors giving details of any third party to whom the information had already been passed and any internet sites on which it had already been posted. 

If XYZ failed to comply with the order, they could be subject to committal proceedings, and sent to prison.

This case underlines the very dim view taken by the Courts of so called "revenge porn". 

At Samuels, we have a wealth of experience in assisting clients who have been the victim of online defamation, as well as various other types of libel and slander. If images of you have been posted online which you wish to have removed, you can also use our bespoke right to be forgotten service

We are committed to ensuring that clients have access to justice when they need it and so we have a range of creative litigation funding options, which can include no win no fee (conditional fee) arrangements for appropriate cases. 

Contact us today to see how we can help. 

Callback Request Form