The offence
Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 created the offence of disclosing a private sexual photograph or film without consent, with intent to cause distress. The image must be private and sexual, the disclosure must be without the consent of the person shown, and the discloser must intend to cause distress. The maximum sentence is two years’ imprisonment. The Online Safety Act 2023 also added threatening to disclose such images as an offence.
Each element must be proved. The image must be genuinely ‘private’ and ‘sexual’ within the statutory meanings; the disclosure must be without consent; and the prosecution must prove a specific intent to cause distress. Where any element is missing, the offence is not made out — and we test each one carefully.
How these cases arise
- Images shared following the breakdown of a relationship
- Distribution via social media, messaging apps, or websites
- Threats to disclose images
- Group sharing of images originally sent privately
How we defend revenge porn allegations
- Challenging the intent to cause distress
- Disputing whether the image was 'private' or 'sexual' as defined
- Raising consent — express or reasonably inferred
- Establishing that you were not the person who disclosed the image
- Examining digital attribution and device evidence
- Mitigation including remorse and steps to remove the material
Intent, consent and attribution
Intent to cause distress is an essential element. Without it, the offence is not made out, even if the image was shared. We examine the surrounding circumstances and communications to challenge the required intent where the evidence supports it — for example, where sharing was reckless rather than targeted, or where there was no intent to cause the person distress.
Attribution is often the real issue. Where an image is shared from an account or device, the prosecution must prove that the defendant was the person who disclosed it. Shared devices, hacked accounts, and group access can all break that link. We examine the digital evidence and challenge attribution where it is not properly proved.
Related offences and risks
Allegations can run alongside other offences — blackmail, harassment, or controlling behaviour — and may be charged as such. We address the full picture, advise on all routes the prosecution might take, and prepare accordingly.
The interaction between these charges affects both the prosecution strategy and the likely sentence. Where disclosure is alleged alongside a campaign of harassment, the sentencing consequences can be significantly greater, and the defence must address the conduct as a whole rather than the single image.
Frequently asked questions
Intent to cause distress is an essential element. Without it, the offence is not made out, even if the image was shared. We examine the surrounding circumstances and communications to challenge the required intent where the evidence supports it.
Both ‘private’ and ‘sexual’ have specific meanings. An image shared widely or not genuinely private, or not ‘sexual’ as defined, may fall outside the offence. We analyse the image and the context carefully.
The maximum for disclosing without consent is two years’ imprisonment; threatening to disclose carries the same maximum. Sentences range from community orders to custody depending on harm, intent, and the impact on the victim. We present all relevant mitigation.
It can be. If the image is private and sexual, the disclosure is without consent, and you intend to cause distress, the offence is made out — even if the image was originally sent to you. Consent to receive an image is not consent to share it. We examine consent and intent carefully.
Attribution is often the real issue. The prosecution must prove that you were the person who disclosed the image. Shared devices, hacked accounts, and group access can all break that link. We examine the digital evidence and challenge attribution where it is not properly proved.
Yes. The Online Safety Act 2023 created an offence of threatening to disclose private sexual images, carrying the same maximum of two years’ imprisonment. Threats made to coerce or control can also be charged as blackmail or harassment, with more serious consequences. We advise on all routes the prosecution may take.