News focus: Landmark damages awarded in so-called 'revenge porn' case

A woman was this week awarded almost £100,000 in damages after her former partner covertly recorded her naked and then published the images online, in what is believed to be the first case of its kind to come before the civil courts in England and Wales.

Mrs Justice Thornton awarded the unnamed woman general damages of £60,000 and special damages of £37,041.61 for consequential financial losses.

Thornton also criticised the term ‘revenge porn’, saying it ‘conveys the impression that a victim somehow deserved what happened to them. The description suggested by counsel and used in this judgment, is “image-based abuse”.’

The claimant found a microscopic camera concealed in the bathroom of the home she lived in with Stuart Gaunt and discovered he had uploaded the images onto a pornographic website along with a photo of her face. Gaunt was convicted of voyeurism and other sexual offences in 2020. He received a two-year suspended sentence and must sign the sex offenders register for 10 years.

In FGX v Stuart Gaunt, Thornton found that the claimant and Gaunt were in a ‘personal and intimate’ relationship and the images, though not of sexual activity, were ‘intimate’.

Gaunt did not provide any defence to the High Court claim.

Thornton found that ‘the likelihood of the images having been replicated elsewhere’ was high ‘and it would be rare for there to be less than 20 images to view’. She added that ‘the available evidence indicated the defendant obtained payment for uploading the images’.

As a result of what happened, the claimant suffered from chronic PTSD and is considered ‘one of a minority of cases in which PTSD becomes chronic over several years, causing an enduring personality change’.

A precedent that ‘directly’ provided assistance to Thornton in assessing a suitable monetary award for general damages could not be identified. So the judge looked to ABC and WH v Willock, the only relevant authority on intentional infliction of harm which counsel was able to identify; Reid v Price; and Bell v Desporte.

'The court’s approach to the level of damages [was interesting] … Here, the damages were really on a par with what you could expect from a rape case'

Jonathan Bridge, Farleys Solicitors

The judge accepted the ‘impacts on the claimant are akin to the impacts of sexual assault… albeit that the abuse… is image-based rather than physical’.

Awarding general damages of £60,000, Thornton said: ‘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.

‘A further aggravating feature is the defendant’s failure to participate in these proceedings. His failure to do so has deprived the claimant of the opportunity to obtain information about the extent of publication, which remains a preoccupation for her and a barrier to her recovery.’

The woman was represented by Jonathan Bridge of Farleys Solicitors and Justin Levinson of 1 Crown Office Row.

Bridge said he believed similar cases would start to come before the civil courts, adding: ‘The court’s approach to the level of damages [was interesting]. Here, the damages were really on a par with what you could expect from a rape case.

‘It has the same consequences: the lady has PTSD and a personality change, which has caused long-term impact.

‘The barrister [Levinson] raised the point on the term of “revenge porn”, because “revenge” is the wrong word.’

Bridge said “revenge” implies a victim has done something wrong and the perpetrator is acting as a result of the victim’s actions. Such cases normally arise after the breakdown of a relationship, when the ex-partner shares private and intimate images.

Bridge said the fact that the images had been taken without the woman’s knowledge and shared online with a photo of her face, may have ‘enhanced damages slightly’.

‘She is absolutely delighted,’ he added. ‘[Gaunt] has been named and shamed.’

‘Revenge porn’ remains the commonly used term to identify the sharing of intimate pictures and videos both online and by ‘physical distribution’. An amendment to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill in 2015 criminalised the sharing of private intimate photographs without consent. It also covered images sent on social networks and by messaging. Those convicted can face up to two years in prison.

Zahra Awaiz-Bilal, a senior associate in Bolt Burdon Kemp’s Abuse team, said this ‘landmark case’ was a ‘long-awaited positive step in the right direction.

‘While this case is the first of its kind in the UK, I very much doubt that it will be the last,’ she said. ‘I hope cases like this will encourage other survivors to seek their own justice.’

This article is now closed for comment.