Source · Select Committees · Women and Equalities Committee
Recommendation 18
18
Accepted in Part
Introduce statutory time limit extension for intimate image abuse, starting from victim awareness.
Recommendation
The Government should introduce an extension to the statutory time limits that apply to current and forthcoming intimate image abuse offences, such that the time limit begins only once the victim(s) is/are aware of the abuse. (Recommendation, Paragraph 93)
Government Response Summary
The government partially accepts, stating it is extending the statutory time limit for the new 'creating' and 'requesting the creation of' intimate image offences in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. It is considering the issue very carefully for other intimate image abuse offences.
Government Response
Accepted in Part
HM Government
Accepted in Part
Partial acceptance Section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 effectively imposes a six month limitation period on summary-only offences, unless that provision is displaced. This time limit does not apply to offences that are triable either way. We are extending the statutory time limit for the new “creating” and “requesting the creation of” a purported intimate image in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. This will enable prosecutions to be brought at any date which is both within six months from when sufficient evidence comes to the prosecutor’s knowledge to justify a prosecution and within three years from when the offence was committed. . This is because the nature of the ‘creating’ offence (which can be committed without anyone, other than the perpetrator, being aware of it) is such that there may well be circumstances where it is some time before it comes to light. This is not necessarily the case for other intimate image abuse offences, which are triable only summarily (that is the offence in section 66B(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and the proposed offences to be inserted by the Crime and Policing Bill as a new section 66AA(1) and section 66AC(1) of the 2003 Act respectively). Furthermore, in respect of both the ‘creating’ and ‘requesting’ offences, unlike in respect of the ‘taking’ and ‘sharing’ offences, we are not introducing specific intent offences which would be triable either way and therefore not subject to time limits. Therefore, unless the time limits of the ‘creating’ and ‘requesting’ offences were extended, there would be no means of prosecuting them more than six months after the offence was committed, even where committed with specific intent. This is not the case for the ‘taking’ and ‘sharing’ offences. However, we are considering the issue very carefully.