Today’s easy access to the internet, smart phones and online messaging has changed how we interact with people. One of the types of relationships which have been affected by technology are romantic and sexual relationships. Today, sexting (including both text and intimate photos or videos – the blues) are common in these types of relationships – and are pervasive into casual relationships.

​

This is all well and good once both persons agree with the sharing and receiving of intimate media. But things get complicated when the relationship ends or when someone ‘get horn’. The internet allows for the immediate and unlimited sharing of media which can cause the victims to become the subject of ridicule, harassment and worse. The stories don’t last long in the spotlight but the impact on the victim remains - the lingering emotional and psychological impact of revenge porn is well documented worldwide.

​

Up to recently, our laws made no real provision to address revenge porn. This has changed, to an extent, by, first, the High Court's decision in Therese Ho v. Lendl Simmons which relates to the civil remedies available to some victims of revenge porn and, second, the Domestic Violence (Amendment) Act 2020.

​

In terms of civil liability, the case of Therese Ho v. Lendl Simmons was one of the first which recognised revenge porn as being a wrong requiring monetary compensation. It was a step in the right direction since it was the first time in T&T that a court had applied the law of breach of confidence to this scenario but it is debatable whether this decision goes far enough in reproach of the intent behind the person (in a relationship) who shares intimate media.

​

Although Simmons was ordered to pay to Ho the sum of $150,000.00 (including damages for the aggravation exemplified by Simmons’ behaviour and reasons in sharing the intimate media) the question comes up of whether this goes far enough. Well, it can’t really for two reasons. First, historically breach of confidence was not initially developed for this scenario to say that it should apply seamlessly. Second, case law (that is, the law developed by the court when it hears and decides cases) is developed in a patchwork and piecemeal fashion – the court doesn’t legislate like Parliament but instead it develops the existing law incrementally to apply to specific facts.

​

This is where Parliament tried to step in. Parliamentary law (referred to as 'Acts of Parliament' or 'Acts' or 'statutes') can legislate specifically and go as far as it needs to prevent the mischief being addressed from happening and to punish those persons who are guilty of it. And that’s what Parliament did – or better yet attempted to do through the existing mechanism of protection orders under the domestic violence legislation.

 

You can check out our take on Theresa Ho v. Lendl Simmons here and the Domestic Violence (Amendment) Act 2020 here which concern the legal developments regarding revenge porn in T&T.

​

After you've read these, have a think. Are these options for redress good enough?

 

There are two major flaws - these laws don't criminalise revenge porn outrightly. It isn't a criminal offence under the Domestic Violence (Amendment) Act 2020 - a criminal offence is only committed if a protection order is granted and later breached.

​

Second, the Domestic Violence (Amendment) Act 2020 is very specific in that it deals largely only with the situation where it is the victim's present or former lover or partner who is sharing the images. It does not entitle the victim to redress where it's a third party who obtains the intimate media and distributes it. In this case, the victim may only be able to claim civil relief. 

​

Even if existing cybercrime legislation could apply, these offences are general and arguably do not reflect the gravity of revenge porn. It’s not clear even if the police would charge under this legislation since senior officials have stated their view that the existing law doesn't criminalise revenge porn.

​

It’s up to Parliament to legislate whether it be through cyber-crime legislation or amending the sexual offences legislation. 

​

Last updated 05 November 2021