High Court grants injunction after celebrity revenge porn threat

In JPH v XYZ [2015] EWHC 2871 Mr Justice Popplewell considered an emergency application for an  injunction to restrain the publication of intimate images.  The application was made after the Defendant threatened to publish photographs and videos of the Claimant (a successful actor) which were of a sexual nature and created whilst they were in a relationship.

The Defendant had threatened to post the videos and photographs online and through social media, seemingly in revenge for the Claimant ending their relationship.  The Defendant suggested that third parties were in possession of the videos and images and under instructions to publish the material if the Claimant contacted the police.  The Defendant had also sent an email containing a selection of these photos of the couple to one of the Claimant's ex-partners.  Finally, a small number of still images were published on the World Wide Web.  Popplewell J inferred that the images had been posted by, or at the instigation of, the Defendant.

The Claimant was granted an out of hours emergency interim injunction on 10 October 2015 on an anonymised basis, with the Court allowing service by email, alongside an order that the Defendant disclose the names of the third parties in possession of the material within an hour of the order coming to the Defendant's attention.

At the return hearing on 16 June 2015 Mr Justice Blake ordered that the injunction continue.  He held that the threat to the Claimant's right to a private life (under Article 8 ECHR) meant that the injunction was a proportionate and justified to interference with the Defendant's right to freedom of expression (under Article 10 ECHR).  In balancing the two rights, the Judge drew the common distinction between the "public interest" and "what the public might be interested in".

The Court also noted that the publication of the images might amount to an offence under section 33 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

Blake J continued the anonymity order over the parties' names, including the Defendant's name.  As the Claimant was an actor in the public eye, there was a significant chance that their identity could be discovered through knowledge of the Defendant’s name if it was not anonymised.  This process is known as 'jigsaw identification'.

Blake J also agreed that the Court should "identify the sanction of debarring from defending" if the Defendant failed to comply with the outstanding disclosure obligation [identifying third parties in possession of the material]).  This was in addition to any liability for contempt of court for disobedience of a court order.  A party found in contempt of court is liable to be imprisoned, fined and/or to have their assets seized.

To find out how Brett Wilson LLP can assist you if you have been a victim of Revenge Porn click here.