Skip to main content

4.04.23

Georgia Harrison to sue Stephen Bear over revenge porn/image-based abuse that has already landed him in jail

 

Who are Stephen Bear and Georgia Harrison?

If you are not a fan of reality television, then it’s unlikely you would have heard of either of Stephen Bear or Georgia Harrison until recently.

Stephen Bear, 33, appeared on Shipwrecked in 2011 and Ex on the Beach in 2015.  These accomplishments allowed Bear to qualify for Celebrity Big Brother in 2016.  Bear’s standalone non-reality TV credential is a short-lived stint presenting MTV’s Just Tattoo of Us.

Georgia Harrison, 28, was a contestant on series three of Love Island and has previously appeared on The Only Way is Essex.

Bear and Harrison were friends and involved in an on/off relationship.

 

Why are they in the news?

In March 2023, Stephen Bear received a 21-month prison sentence at the Chelmsford Crown Court after having been convicted of voyeurism and the disclosure of private images.

Bear and Harrison had sex in Bear’s back garden.  The act was caught on his CCTV system.  He subsequently shared the video with a friend and posted it to his Only Fans account, allowing subscribers to access it for a fee.  He did this after having assured Harrison that the video had been deleted.

Bear, presumably taking the adage ‘no publicity is bad publicity’ a little too literally, turned up to his trial dressed up as a pimp and serenaded reporters.  He refused to apologise to Harrison or show any remorse.  Indeed, he published a video mocking her for the distress she was suffering.

Harrison has subsequently spoken out about the trauma she suffered (the stress of the incident triggered a form of sepsis shock that hospitalised her) and become involved in campaigning work to help fellow victims of revenge porn/image-based abuse.

Below we set out the legal consequences of revenge porn/image-based abuse.

 

What criminal offences apply to revenge porn/image-based abuse?

It is an offence to:-

  • disclose (i.e. share or publish), or threaten to disclose, a private sexual photograph or film with the intention to cause the subject distress, and where the subject has not consented (section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015).
  • record another person engaging in a private act with the intention of yourself or another obtaining sexual gratification from looking at an image of the act, when it is known the person is not consenting (section 67(3) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003).
  • operate equipment with the intention of enabling another person to observe, for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification, a third person doing a private act, when it is known the third person is not consenting (section 67(2) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003).

Each of these offences carry a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

Bear was convicted of two counts of disclosure (section 33) and one count of voyeurism (section 67).

Depending on the circumstances, other offences may applying including blackmail (section 21 of the Theft Act 1968), harassment (section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997) and offences under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

If you have been a victim of image-based abused/revenge porn and wish to pursue a criminal complaint then a report should be made to your local police station.  However, if you are considering pursuing a claim for compensation then it is normally best to contact specialist solicitors before you make a complaint (unless of course you believe you are in immediate danger).

Whilst the cooperation of the victim is usually necessary, ultimately, it is the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) who decide whether an individual should be prosecuted for a revenge porn/image-based abuse offence.  This can be contrasted with civil proceedings, to which we now turn, where it is the victim who decides if and when legal proceedings should be brought.  This, in and of itself, can be very empowering.

 

What type of compensation am I entitled to if I sue someone for revenge porn/image-based abuse?

Crudely speaking, the purpose of criminal proceedings (and the criminal courts) is to punish a wrongdoer, rather than compensate a victim.  If you wish to pursue the defendant for compensation, this is normally done through the civil courts.

In practice, it is rarely necessary to issue court proceedings, as (assuming the defendant has money/assets) your solicitors will usually be able to negotiate an early settlement.

Harrison has indicated that she wishes to sue Bear for loss of earnings.  This is sound in principle.  Her solicitors will likely argue - with expert medical evidence - that were it not for the disclosure of the video that she would have been well enough to earn a specified sum.  She will need to satisfy the Court that work, to the value of the sum sought, would have been available.  Equally, Harrison will need to show that the loss of this income was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of Bear’s actions.

In practice, privacy claims often don’t include a claim for loss of earnings.  This is because it can be difficult to establish causation and because the Court can award substantial damages in any event for a claimant’s loss of control/autonomy over their private information, as well as the distress they have suffered.  In other words, a loss of income claim is usually unnecessary.  The mere fact that images have been shared will normally attract a significant damages award.

It is not necessary for revenge porn/image-based abuse to have caused psychiatric injury, but if a victim does suffer from a psychiatric injury (and/or, in the case of Harrison, physical injury) as a result of the defendant’s actions, then additional damages can be sought.

Other damages available might include the cost of instructing specialists (typically lawyers) to try and remove content from the internet, the cost of medication and the cost of counselling.

Legal costs are also recoverable from a defendant.

 

What level of compensation is awarded in revenge porn/image-based abuse cases?

This will depend very much on the particular facts of a case.  Civil proceedings are not intended to punish a defendant.  Instead, the court focuses on the impact on the victim’s life and compensates them accordingly.  The nature of the images are a factor (e.g. whether it is a topless photo or a video of an explicit sexual act) as well as the extent of the publication.  However, the character of the victim is also a major factor.  A more vulnerable victim may be more adversely affected and thus have a greater entitlement to damages.

The recent High Court decision in FGX v Gaunt [2023] EWHC 419 (KB) (see our blog here), is the first time the Court has carried out a full assessment of damages in a revenge porn/images-based abuse case.  The judgment contains important guidance on the relevant factors when determining the level of damages.  In that case the defendant was ordered to pay nearly £100,000 to the Claimant (with legal costs on top).

In practice, most cases settle very early on (it is in a defendant’s interests to seek to shut down a claim quickly).  Settlements in the region of £15,000-100,000 are common.

 

What other orders can a court make?

The Court may grant an injunction prohibiting the further disclosure of the images.  It may also make an order requiring a defendant to remove images from the internet.  Finally, it may make an order compelling a defendant to provide information about to whom they have disclosed images.

 

What must a claimant prove in a revenge porn/image-based abuse claim?

Civil claims are typically based on the tort of the misuse of private information (and occasionally breach of confidence and/or breach of data protection legislation).  Generally-speaking, it is much easier to establish civil liability than criminal liability.  This is because a victim typically only needs to prove that the information (i.e. the image) was private and its disclosure was unauthorised.  There is no need to establish a motive and the burden of proof is lower than in the criminal courts (a claimant must prove their case on the balance of probabilities/rather than ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’).

 

Why aren’t more revenge porn/image-based abuse claims brought?

There is no public funding available for civil privacy claims and, thus, anyone considering bringing a claim will need to be in a position to pay legal fees upfront (with the aim of recovering these from the defendant).

A civil claim for compensation is normally only worth bringing where a defendant has assets (typically property with equity) to enforce against.  There may be circumstances where a victim still decides to bring a claim, e.g. out of principle to highlight the defendant's wrongdoing or where they require an injunction.  However, if the defendant is unable to pay a cost order/judgment, the claimant will be out of pocket.

Claims for revenge porn/image-based abuse are actually very common, but they tend to be settled early and before they reach court.

 

Can a defendant be both prosecuted and sued for revenge porn/image-based abuse?

The short answer is yes - a defendant can be prosecuted and/or sued.  Prior to Harrison's intimated claim, this occurred in FGX.  Criminal and civil proceedings are independent.  The police/CPS will not be able to assist with a civil claim; you will need to contact specialist privacy solicitors.

Generally-speaking, if you are contemplating bringing a civil claim, it is best to take advice from specialist solicitors at the outset (and before making a criminal complaint).

 

If you have been a victim of revenge porn/image-based abuse, our team of privacy law solicitors can provide expert legal advice and representation. To request a consultation please send us an email, complete our online enquiry form or call us on 020 3432 9934


Share


Legal Disclaimer

Articles are intended as an introduction to the topic and do not constitute legal advice.