Revenge Porn Prosecutions Landmark Cases
🔹 1. R v. Walker [2016] (United Kingdom)
Facts:
Stephen Walker was the first person convicted under the UK's new Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, which specifically criminalized revenge porn. Walker uploaded intimate images of his ex-girlfriend on Facebook, including sexually explicit photos, after their breakup.
Legal Arguments:
The prosecution argued that the images were disclosed without consent, with the clear intention to cause distress. The defense attempted to argue that it was not intended to distress, but this failed given the context.
Judgment:
Walker pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 12 weeks imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, and ordered to do 200 hours of unpaid work.
Significance:
First conviction under the 2015 law.
Set precedent for sentencing standards.
Showed courts take intent and impact on the victim seriously.
🔹 2. U.S. v. Hunter Moore (California, United States, 2022)
Facts:
Hunter Moore ran the infamous website "IsAnyoneUp", where users could upload explicit photos of people, often with personal information. Moore and a hacker conspired to illegally access private email accounts to steal intimate photos.
Legal Arguments:
He was charged under federal laws including:
Unauthorized access to protected computers
Aggravated identity theft
Notably, revenge porn wasn't federally criminalized at the time, so prosecutors used cybercrime laws to build the case.
Judgment:
Moore pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 2.5 years in federal prison, plus a fine and supervised release.
Significance:
Landmark U.S. case due to its scale and public exposure.
Prompted debates and led to the passing of state-level revenge porn laws across the U.S.
Netflix documentary (“The Most Hated Man on the Internet”) further publicized the issue.
🔹 3. R v. Goldsworthy [2017] (United Kingdom)
Facts:
Michael Goldsworthy sent sexually explicit photos of his ex-partner to her employer and friends after a breakup, intending to humiliate her.
Legal Arguments:
The case fell under Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. The intent to cause harm was evident, as he distributed them widely and maliciously.
Judgment:
Goldsworthy was sentenced to six months imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, and given a restraining order.
Significance:
Expanded legal understanding of distribution beyond social media.
Emphasized the role of targeted harassment in establishing guilt.
Showed courts willing to use restraining orders in such cases.
🔹 4. State of Haryana v. Indrajeet Bhayana (India, 2017)
Facts:
A man threatened to upload morphed explicit images of his ex-girlfriend unless she returned to him. Though he hadn’t yet posted the images, he harassed her over WhatsApp and email.
Legal Arguments:
Charged under Section 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act.
Also faced charges under Section 506 IPC (Criminal Intimidation).
Judgment:
Bhayana was convicted, with the court emphasizing intent to defame and harass, even though the images were not yet uploaded. He received 3 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Landmark case in India involving digital harassment and IT Act provisions.
Court held that even threat of sharing revenge porn qualifies as an offense.
Strengthened jurisprudence around digital consent and threats.
🔹 5. Wilson v. Ferguson (Western Australia, 2015) – Civil Suit
Facts:
In a civil suit (not criminal), a woman sued her ex-boyfriend who uploaded intimate images and videos of her on Facebook after their breakup.
Legal Arguments:
She claimed breach of confidence and privacy.
Argued the act caused her emotional and reputational damage.
Judgment:
The Western Australian court awarded her $48,404 in damages, finding that the man's actions were a breach of confidence, even though revenge porn wasn't a criminal offense at the time in that state.
Significance:
First civil case awarding damages for revenge porn in Australia.
Highlighted the availability of civil remedies even in absence of criminal laws.
Influenced legislative reforms in Australian states to criminalize the behavior.
🔹 6. People v. Iniguez (California, USA, 2016)
Facts:
Iniguez posted a nude video of his ex-girlfriend on social media after their breakup. California had introduced a revenge porn law in 2013 under California Penal Code 647(j)(4).
Legal Arguments:
Prosecutors showed the video was distributed without consent with the intent to cause emotional distress.
Judgment:
He was convicted under the 2013 revenge porn statute and sentenced to 1 year in jail, with probation and mandatory counseling.
Significance:
Early test of California’s revenge porn law.
Validated the constitutionality of the statute, which had been challenged on free speech grounds.
🔹 Key Legal Provisions Cited in These Cases
| Country | Law Used | Description |
|---|---|---|
| UK | Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, s.33 | First specific revenge porn criminal law |
| USA | State-level statutes (e.g., CA Penal Code 647(j)(4)) | State-specific revenge porn laws |
| India | IT Act, Sections 66E, 67A; IPC Sections 354, 506 | Covers electronic transmission of obscene material and criminal intimidation |
| Australia | Civil and criminal provisions vary by state | Privacy breaches, harassment, image-based abuse |
🧩 Conclusion
These landmark cases reflect a growing global consensus that revenge porn is a serious violation of privacy and dignity. Courts have responded with both criminal penalties and civil remedies, with sentencing guided by:
The intent to cause distress
Consent of the depicted person
Extent of distribution
Psychological impact on the victim
Each case played a key role in shaping legal awareness, victim protection, and legislative reform in its jurisdiction.
RELATED Blog
0 comments