‘Revenge porn’ abusers allowed to keep devices with illicit images

Prosecutors in England and Wales are failing to obtain orders requiring the deletion of intimate content shared without consent, analysis reveals. Perpetrators of “revenge porn” offences are being allowed to keep explicit images of their victims on their devices, after a failure by prosecutors to obtain orders requiring their deletion.

An Observer analysis of court records in cases of sharing intimate images without consent has found that orders for the offenders to give up their devices and delete abusive photos and videos are rarely being made. Of 98 cases involving intimate image abuse concluded in the magistrates courts in England and Wales in the past six months, just three resulted in a deprivation order.

In other cases involving digital devices, such as offences regarding indecent images of children, these orders were made consistently. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) this weekend said more must be done to “stop ­perpetrators retaining these images and continuing to take gratification from their crimes”.

In one case earlier this month, a man was rebuked by magistrates for “thoroughly disgraceful” and “deeply disturbing” behaviour “designed to emotionally blackmail and control” his victim. The 35-year-old from Swansea was given a six-month suspended sentence, a rehabilitation order and a three-year restraining order – but no deprivation order, leaving the police with no legal power to retain and wipe his devices.

In another case last October in Crawley, West Sussex, a 32-year-old man was jailed for 26 weeks after sharing private sexual photos of his ex-girlfriend. He was given a ­restraining order until 2029 – but no deprivation order. The findings point to a systemic failure of courts to impose the orders, and of prosecutors to request them in the first place.

A spokesperson for the CPS said: “While courts already have the power to deprive convicted offenders of nonconsensual intimate images and videos, we accept there is more we can do.” It is reviewing its guidance for prosecutors. The Sentencing Council, which produces guidelines for magistrates and judges in England and Wales, will also consider whether updates are needed.

Campaigners said the failure to force deletion in every case was ­leaving victims “living in fear” that the images could be shared again. Sophie Mortimer, who runs the Revenge Porn Helpline, said that even if there was no such threat, just ­knowing the perpetrator still had access to them was a “vile thought”.

Mortimer said she also knew of cases where images obtained ­illicitly, such as through voyeurism, were not destroyed. One man who secretly recorded a woman was convicted and given a suspended sentence – only to be handed back devices containing the imagery afterwards.

When the victim challenged the decision, police said they had no legal power to act because there was no court order. “They told her: ‘Our hands are tied,’” Mortimer said. She called for urgent changes to ensure content was destroyed in every case – from cloud storage, hard drives, and social media accounts, as well as physical devices. “The ­government says the courts already have powers to order this, but it’s pointless if it’s never used,” she said.

Elena Michael, of the campaign group #NotYourPorn, said ­allowing perpetrators to keep images and devices sent the message that they were “untouchable”. “You’re ­handing back the weapon that caused the crime and rolling out the carpet for them to do it again,” she said.

She said the group had worked with 450 victims and found there was “no consistent approach” to the issue. “Sometimes the police try really hard to hold on to devices or find a way of getting rid of ­content. But they’re in a situation where the law is not supporting them even if morally they know it’s right,” she added.

A victim in a case where the ­perpetrator was not made to delete sexual videos said: “It makes my skin crawl to know that he could still be watching these, let alone uploading them on the internet again.”. Emma Pickering, head of technology-facilitated abuse at the charity Refuge, said: “This critical loophole needs to be urgently addressed.”.

The Observer’s analysis looked at cases of sharing or threatening to share intimate photos of a ­person without consent that have been heard in the magistrates courts since August 2024, using records from the Courtsdesk database of hearings in England and Wales.

It also looked at people convicted in the past six months of an earlier version of the offence: “disclosing or threatening to disclose private sexual photos with intent to cause distress”. Of about 600 defendants who appeared before magistrates charged with the crimes, many were awaiting further hearings. The cases considered most serious were referred to the crown court for trial or sentencing.

For the defendants who were sentenced by magistrates, punishments varied widely. They ranged from 50 to 250 hours of unpaid work, rehabilitation orders requiring them to attend “building better relationships” courses, fines of between £100 and £450, and suspended or immediate custodial sentences.