Recommendation 7

HM Government Rejected

We currently have little evidence about the effectiveness or speed of the process in British Columbia, which this proposed statutory civil process is based on. Additionally, many of the functions of the recommended civil process are already covered in the Online Safety Act or through existing civil routes, as we outline below. We therefore do not believe it would be appropriate to create a new civil route at the current time. Notwithstanding that, the Government recognises the need to facilitate survivors to take fast and effective action towards having their NCII taken down or blocked. We will consider this further as we develop the upcoming VAWG Strategy. 1. Designating an image as NCII The RPH operates StopNCII, a free tool that allows individuals experiencing or concerned about the sharing of their intimate images non-consensually to hash their images. Those hashes are shared with participating companies so they can detect and remove the images from circulation online. Since it was created in 2021, Stop NCII has taken over one million images hashed from around the world. Individuals are able to report their images to the RPH in other ways for them to take action in support of that individual. An image reported to the Helpline is inherently a non-consensual image, and the Helpline confirms if the image meets the definition of a non-consensual intimate image. The Government, therefore, considers that the RPH already holds a dedicated registry of known NCII. Having an additional civil process for the specific purpose of placing images in a registry of known NCII would be more bureaucratic and slower than individuals reporting their images to the Helpline or hashing them with Stop NCII. 2. Prohibiting distribution The Online Safety Act 2023 inserted new offences of sharing or threatening to share intimate images into the Sexual Offences Act 2003. These new offences replaced the previous offence of disclosing or threatening to disclose private sexual photographs or films with intent to cause distress. The new offences, which came into force in January 2024, apply to a broader category of image and in a wider array of circumstances in in this way deliver justice for more victims whose intimate images are shared without their consent or a reasonable belief in their consent. There is now a ‘base’ offence of sharing an intimate image of another person without their consent or reasonable belief in their consent (section 66B(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003). There are also more serious offences (at section 66B(2) and (3)) which apply where a person shares an image for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification (either for themselves, or another person) or with the intention of causing the victim alarm, distress or humiliation. The maximum sentence for the ‘base’ sharing offence is the maximum term for summary offences, currently 6 months imprisonment. The maximum sentence for the more serious offences is two years’ imprisonment. A custodial sentence is a serious punishment that reflects the harm caused by NCII abuse. The Government considers that it is unlikely that a prohibition on sharing specific images that results from a civil process would be more effective than the criminal law to deter malicious individuals. 3. Requiring the individual to delete any images and 4. Requiring the individual to take down or disable access to an intimate image Sentencing, including the imposition of ancillary orders, is a matter for the independent judiciary. Judges are guided by Sentencing Guidelines which include information for judges on the orders which they can impose, including deprivation orders. Judges are required to follow any guidelines which are relevant to a case, unless it is in the interests of justice not to do so, and to consider representations made by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) at a sentencing hearing. CPS guidance sets out clear information for prosecutors on the availability of deprivation orders. The CPS has recently updated their guidance to prosecutors to support them to make better use of deprivation orders in cases of intimate image abuse. The Sentencing Council is currently reviewing their guidance on ancillary orders, including deprivation orders, to improve its clarity, accuracy and usefulness to sentencers. The Lord Chancellor responded to their consultation, and we look forward to their revised guidelines. There are also existing civil orders that can be used to achieve these aims, as well as the aim of prohibiting distribution. The Government launched domestic abuse protection orders (DAPOs) in selected areas in November 2024. DAPOs are orders that can be made to prevent a domestic abuse perpetrator (aged 18 or over) from being abusive towards a person aged 16 or over with whom they are personally connected. The court can impose any conditions in the DAPO that they deem necessary and proportionate to protect the victim from domestic abuse. This can include prohibitions such as not