Australia: Senders, sharers, likers and tweeters beware – the civil implications of the crime of revenge porn

Last Updated: 27 February 2017
Article by Joshua Dale

Senders, Sharers, likers and tweeters beware – the civil implications of the crime of revenge porn

As first published in Precedent Magazine 'Revenge porn' is the non-consensual sharing of intimate images including those obtained (consensually or otherwise) in an intimate relationship; photographs or videos of sexual assault; images obtained from the use of hidden devices to record another person; stolen images from the cloud or a person's computer or other device; and pornographic or sexually explicit images that have been photoshopped, showing the victims face.i

Specific legislation has been introduced in Victoria and most recently, South Australia, making it a criminal offence to commit acts of revenge porn; however, other states as well as the Commonwealth are looking at doing the same as the issue continues to gain significant prominence in the community,ii and debate shifts to providing both criminal penalties and other options for victims to pursue.

Over the last few decades, technology has entered every aspect of our lives, making life easier but also bringing with it the risk of exploitation of those mediums. In particular, we now live in a society where people want more and more instantaneous and time-efficient interactions with their friends, family, acquaintances and work colleagues. We can now take and send photographs instantaneously from a single device. This ability comes with a number of ethical and very real risks that the images that one intends to send a single person can be circulated and shared among a vast group of people. This has led to the emergence of what we now know as revenge porn.

Revenge porn has the potential to cause significant embarrassment, psychological distress and in some cases psychological injury.

RELEVANT STATISTICS

A 2015 study at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology found that one in 10 Australian adults have had a nude or semi-nude image of themselves uploaded online or shared with others without their consent and the majority of victims were women aged 18 to 24. iii A national survey on technologically facilitated abuse conducted by the Women's Services Network and Women's Legal Service in New South Wales found that 98 per cent of the 546 domestic violence workers surveyed reported that they had had clients who had experienced technologically facilitated stalking and abuse of this kind. iv Recently, the third action plan on preventing violence against children and women released by the Council of Australian Government Summit in Brisbane included the announcement of a national online portal to help victims of revenge porn remove images from the internet. v

The over-representation of women as victims of revenge porn is not limited to Australia.In the UK, the government's Revenge Porn Helpline, according to its website, shows that 75 per cent of callers are women. vi

In the USA, the American Psychological Association has reported on a survey of American adults which found that 36 per cent of the participants planned to send intimate photos to their partners via email, text and social media on Valentine's Day; 10 per cent of ex-partners had threatened to post sexually explicit photographs online; and 60 per cent of the threats had become a reality. vii

Revenge porn has also featured as a specific awareness-raising topic with a number of Women's Legal Services Groups in New South Wales. It is clear, based on the research and the available data, that revenge porn is used as a tool of power and control predominantly by men against former female partners. It is for this reason that the Commonwealth is considering a national approach as the most appropriate way to protect victims. viii

The New South Wales government stated that it will seek to criminalise the creation and distribution of sexually explicit images without consent. Attorney General Gabrielle Upton has announced that while legislation has yet to be drawn up and penalties have yet to be decided, it is likely the proposed new laws will involve a jail term. ix

While criminal penalties will form part of the response to revenge porn, it is clear that civil liability will also play a key role in delivering redress to complainants where psychological injury or distress is suffered.

The fact that Victoria and South Australia have already enacted criminal sanctions, and similar proposals in New South Wales and Western Australia and at a Commonwealth level, will pressure perpetrators to rethink their actions. The issue also has the potential to create issues of vicarious liability, particularly in an employment context where employers must ensure that they are providing employees with a safe and harassment free workplace. In fact, the High Court has recently commented on the issue of vicarious liability in an employment context suggesting that:

'In determining whether the apparent performance of such a role may be said to give the "occasion" for the wrongful act, particular features may be taken into account. They include authority, power, trust, control and the ability to achieve intimacy with the victim. The latter feature may be especially important. Where, in such circumstances, the employee takes advantage of his or her position with respect to the victim, that may suffice to determine that the wrongful act should be regarded as committed in the course or scope of employment and as such render the employer vicariously liable.' x

In circumstances where psychological injury is suffered, there would be a number of potential actions that an injured party could consider both inside and outside an employment setting.

POTENTIAL BREACH OF CONFIDENCE ACTIONS

The importance of privacy and the cause of action of breach of confidence has been well recognised by the High Court. In ABC v Lenah Game Meats, xi Callinan J confirmed that:

'The ability to expose in some context parts of our identity that we conceal in other contexts is indispensable to freedom. Privacy is necessary for the formation of intimate relationships, allowing us to reveal parts of ourselves to friends, family members, and lovers that we withhold from the rest of the world. It is, therefore, a precondition for friendship, individuality and even love.'

Even when we look to historical cases, the significance of an advance in technology and the effects that this may have on privacy have been at the forefront of our jurisprudence. Justice Rich, for example, in the 1937 case of Victoria Park Racing, xii commented on the impact of the emergence of television on privacy:

'Indeed the prospects of television make our present decision a very important one, and I venture to think that the advance of that art may force the courts to recognise that protection against the complete exposure of things of the individual may be a right indispensable to the enjoyment of life.' xiii

The difficulty in advancing any case for breach of confidence is that, despite this recognition of the issue of the invasion of privacy in Australia as early as 1937, there has been no legislative amendments to give clear rights to a cause of action for individuals whose privacy has been breached. This is despite the reach and impact of technological advancements throughout the world, particularly in recent times.

It is, however, possible to found a cause of action arising out of a breach of confidence even where psychiatric injury has not been suffered. In Victoria, the case of Giller v Procopets xiv (Giller)involved a couple where the defendant used a hidden camera to secretly record the sexual activity between himself and the plaintiff. The relationship began to deteriorate, and the defendant threatened to show the plaintiff's family, friends and employer the sexually explicit material. The plaintiff pleaded three causes of action including intentional infliction of harm, invasion of privacy and breach of confidence. In 2008, the Victorian Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the action for breach of confidence and awarded the plaintiff the sum of $40,000, including $10,000 for aggravated damages. When commenting on the effectiveness of remedies in cases of revenge porn, Justice Neave said:

'An inability to order equitable compensation to a claimant who has suffered distress would mean that a claimant whose confidence was breached before an injunction could be obtained would have no effective remedy.' xv

The Court of Appeal, when considering the tort of intentional infliction of harm in Giller, remained divided. It was suggested that the focus of the enquiry should not necessarily be on a particular diagnostic label of psychological injury but, rather, the nature and extent of mental distress actually suffered as a consequence of the defendant's behaviour. However, the Court concluded that something less than a recognisable psychiatric injury was not sufficient harm to establish the tort, and so was not prepared to extend the common law action in order to award compensatory damages for mental distress not amounting to psychiatric injury.

More recently, in the Western Australian case of Wilson v Ferguson, xvi the Supreme Court adopted the approach in Giller v Procopets concerning a breach of confidence. This case involved a romantic relationship between two co-workers who used mobile phones throughout their relationship to send intimate images to each other. The relationship ended and the defendant, Mr Ferguson, then proceeded to post a number of explicit images and videos to Facebook, which were then made available to his 300 Facebook friends.

The plaintiff suffered acute shock and trauma, stopped sleeping, took unpaid leave, needed to move in with her parents and sought psychological counselling. Justice Mitchell, relying upon the Victorian decision of Giller v Procopets ordered the defendant to pay $35,000 for the significant embarrassment, anxiety and emotional distress, and $13,404 for economic loss. Furthermore, an injunction was ordered prohibiting the defendant from publishing any images of the plaintiff engaging in sexual activities or in which she appears naked or partially naked.

Notably, Justice Mitchell agreed with the Victorian Court of Appeal in Giller v Procopets regarding the equitable doctrine of breach of confidence, in that it should be developed by:

'extending the relief available for the unlawful disclosure of confidential information to include monetary compensation for the embarrassment and distress resulting from the disclosure of information of a private and personal nature'. xvii

These cases confirm the judiciary will respond to cases of revenge porn by awarding damages in cases of both psychological injury and psychological distress. It will also distinguish breach of confidence from the common law and legislative tests that usually apply – that is, that a diagnosable psychological injury must be suffered to allow for an award of compensation. It is important to remember, however, that an action arising out of breach of confidence requires a proper examination of the facts: the information must have the necessary quality of confidence, must be received in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, and must involve an actual or threatened unauthorised use of the information.

COMMON LAW CLAIMS, VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND THE POTENTIAL FOR COMPENSATION

Clearly, the public sharing of private sexual material without consent can be humiliating, embarrassing and a significant breach of confidence. For employers there is the added possibility that they are vicariously liable for the actions of their employees in undertaking their employment if during the course of that employment psychological injury is suffered or inflicted.

For example, if an incident of revenge porn occurred in a workplace between two coworkers and psychological injury or other injury is suffered, then the employer would potentially be exposed to a claim under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW).

Arguably, a case of revenge porn between two work colleagues would satisfy ss4 and 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) if an injury was contracted or aggravated in the course of employment and that employment was a substantial contributing factor to the psychological condition, or to the aggravation of such a condition. Given the no-fault jurisdiction of workers' compensation, at least in New South Wales, the potential for a claim to be found out of an action of revenge porn is certainly a possibility, depending on the individual facts of the case.

Outside of a no-fault jurisdiction, there have been a number of cases involving circumstances where employees have been disciplined for out-of-hours conduct when using social media. For example, the Sydney Morning Herald published a number of stories throughout 2015 involving a man making disparaging and derogatory remarks online about Clementine Ford, a freelance journalist and feminist. In December 2015 the man's employer became aware of the offensive comments on Facebook, which resulted in the loss of his employment. xviii Although unrelated to his employment, his comments led to disciplinary action. Furthermore, in June 2016 The Guardian reported on a story involving a university professor who, while using his private Twitter account, made comments about other posts by a student which became the subject of complaints and ultimately led to the professor being suspended without pay because of the online engagement outside of work hours. xix

In an employment context, it is well-established that an employer has a non-delegable duty to provide a safe system of work to its employees. xx In the context of psychological injuries, the limitation is that a worker must have sustained a diagnosable psychiatric condition in order to progress with a claim.

Against this background, the proposition that employers are able to discipline staff members in respect of out-of-hours contact certainly gives rise to the possibility that circumstances where psychological injury, or other injury, was suffered as a result of revenge porn between work colleagues could give rise to a cause of action where employment puts an individual in a position of power over another. Such a situation could give rise to a number of issues of vicarious liability, including:

'where the conduct of which complaint is made was done in the ostensible pursuit of the employer's business or the apparent execution of the authority which the employer held out the employee as having'. xxi

Furthermore, if a case on face value does not give rise to vicarious liability, then arguably the burden would be much higher than in a no-fault jurisdiction. One would need to establish some kind of knowledge on the part of the employer about the actions involving the revenge porn, to a degree that no action, or inadequate action, was considered or taken by the employer in response. For example, in the Victorian decision (for which special leave for an appeal to the High Court was refused) of Box Hill Institute of Tafe v Johnson, xxii the plaintiff alleged that his employer was negligent as he had been subject to 12 instances of bullying. While the case did not specifically involve revenge porn the Court did hold that once a foreseeable risk has been identified:

'The duty owed by the [employer] to the [employee] was to take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable risk of such injury to the [employee] from circumstances of his employment. It was not necessary for the judge to find that the [employer] knew or ought to have known that it was 'likely' that any further interaction or confrontation between the respondent and Williams would cause further injury to the respondent's psyche.' xxiii

This recent decision is reasonably conclusive that if an employer is aware of the potential for injury, distress or embarrassment arising from revenge porn, it would certainly be possible in an employment context to find a cause of action in negligence against them if they failed to respond and/or discipline staff even in circumstances where the revenge porn took place outside of work hours between colleagues. Obviously, this case is not conclusive as regards revenge porn cases in an employment context; however, it will be interesting to see how the law responds if and when such a scenario arises.

CONCLUSION

The very concept of revenge porn is inextricably linked with the internet and mobile devices. Applications have made the act of sharing such materials not only easy, but have also exponentially expanded the possible audience of such images. The proposed criminal legislation and recent Victorian and Western Australian cases are a timely reminder to potential perpetrators that the law will respond to this severe breach of confidence so as to protect victims. Despite the legislative and judicial response, it is likely, however, that the disclosure of sexually explicit images of people without their consent by current or former partners is likely to continue. It is incumbent upon the law to continue to keep up with technological change and respond swiftly to how these changes interact with those that sustain psychological and other injury as a result of these types of behaviour.

Footnotes

i Drs Nicola Henry, Asher Flynn and Anastasia Powell, Submission 9, p3.

ii See the Criminal Code Amendment (Private Sexual Material) Bill 2016 and the First Reading Speech dated 17 October 2016.

iii See A Powell and N Henry, 'Digital Harrassment and Abuse of Adult Australians: A Summary Report' (October 2015) http://research.teachandme.com.au.

iv Ms Elizabeth Snell, Law Reform and Policy Co-ordinator, Women's Legal Services NSW, Committee Hansard, 18 February 2016, p27.

v See press release of the Prime Minister of Australia, the Honourable Malcolm Turnbull, available at: http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2016-10-28/government-strengthens-investment-reduce-violence-against-women-and-children.

vi See Government Equalities Office, Caroline Dinenage MP and the Rt Hon Nicky Morgan MP, 'Hundreds of victims of revenge porn seek support from Helpline', media release (23 August 2015), www.gov.uk.

vii See www.mcafee.com\cf\about\news\2013\q1\20130204-01.aspx.

viii See note 2 above.

ix See media release from the NSW Department of Justice dated 5 September 2016, accessible at: http://www.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/media-news/media-releases/2016/Moving-ahead-on-new-law-to-stop-revenge-porn.aspx.

x Prince Alfred College Incorporated v ADC [2016] HCA 37, 81.

xi Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Limited [2001] HCA63 at [321].

xii Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Company Limited v Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479.

xiii Ibid, 505.

xiv [2008] VSCA 236.

xv Ibid, 424.

xvi [2015] WASC 15.

xvii Ibid, 83.

xviii See article entitled 'Man shamed for trolling Clementine Ford apologises for online attack', available at http://www.smh.com.au/national/man-shamed-for-trolling-clementine-ford-apologises-for-online-attack-20150625-ghxz24.html; and 'Sydney man fired after calling feminist writer Clementine Ford a 'sl**' available at http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/sydney-man-fired-after-calling-feminist-writer-clementine-ford-a-sl/news-story/e1179d6bd723ab6e395c1e2735e4a157.

xix See article entitled 'Deakin university journalism professor suspended without pay over tweets', available at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jun/07/deakin-university-journalism-professor-suspended-without-pay-over-tweets.

xx See, for example, Hamilton v Nuroof (WA) Pty Ltd (1956) 96 CLR 18 at 25 per Dixon CJ and Kitto J, which was cited with approval by Gibbs CJ in Turner v South Australia (1982) 42 ALR 669 and O'Connor v Commissioner for Government Transport (1958) 100 CLR 225 at 229.

xxi See New South Wales v Lepore; Samin v Queensland; Rich v Queensland (2003) 195 ALR 412 at 239 per Gummow & Hayne JJ.

xxii [2015] VSCA 245.

xxiii Ibid, 45 (Warren CJ, Hansen and Kaye JJA).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Joshua Dale
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions