Saucy images now in sher­iff’s hands

The Star Late Edition - - NEWS - ZELDA VENTER

IF YOU still have com­pro­mis­ing pic­tures of your for­mer lover and you’re in­clined to flaunt them, it’s best you hand the pho­tos back, be­cause you’re not en­ti­tled to them.

This was the mes­sage of two judges of the high court in Joburg.

In an ap­peal judg­ment, they ruled that a scorned lover who flaunted naked and other com­pro­mis­ing pic­tures and videos of his for­mer lover on so­cial me­dia had to hand them over to the sher­iff.

In terms of the judg­ment, all the man’s dig­i­tal de­vices had to be placed “in the tem­po­rary cus­tody” of the sher­iff so that a foren­sic ex­pert could iden­tify any pic­tures de­pict­ing the woman, which had to be per­ma­nently deleted.

The judg­ment, which refers to the woman as KS and the man as AM in or­der to pro­tect the woman’s iden­tity, fol­lowed an ap­peal by the woman.

She had ob­tained a do­mes­tic vi­o­lence or­der against the man, in terms of which he was in­ter­dicted from abus­ing or con­tact­ing her. He was also in­ter­dicted from post­ing any ex­plicit sex­ual videos or pic­tures of her on so­cial me­dia.

The or­der was granted in terms of sec­tion 7 of the Do­mes­tic Vi­o­lence Act.

KS, how­ever, wanted the mag­is­trate to go a step fur­ther to en­sure that AM had no more of­fend­ing pic­tures of her in his pos­ses­sion. She wanted an ex­pert to ex­am­ine his elec­tronic equip­ment to en­sure that any re­main­ing pic­tures were deleted.

But the mag­is­trate was of the opinion that as he had in­ter­dicted the man from pub­lish­ing th­ese images, there was no need for him to grant the fur­ther or­der. He also voiced his con­cern that in hav­ing the sher­iff search his home for pos­si­ble images, it would in­fringe on AM’s right to pri­vacy.

The high court heard that the cou­ple met in 2014 and their re­la­tion­ship grew to a point that they had agreed to get mar­ried. It all went sour when AM’s wife sud­denly ar­rived at KS’s home.

KS, who said she had no idea that he was mar­ried, sub­se­quently dumped him. AM, how­ever, said if he could not have her no one would. He threat­ened her over the phone and through text mes­sages.

He later cre­ated a fraud­u­lent Face­book ac­count in the name of KS and posted ex­plicit sex­ual video footage and pic­tures of her on it. He made tele­phonic threats to her that he could not live with­out her and that he knew hi­jack­ers and gangs who would harm her and her fam­ily.

KS turned to the lower court for pro­tec­tion, which she was par­tially af­forded. But on ap­peal she said she was not fully pro­tected if her abuser was still in pos­ses­sion and con­trol of the of­fend­ing ma­te­rial.

Judge Ed­win Mo­lahlehi, in a judg­ment col­lab­o­rated by Judge L Vuma, said the courts were ob­li­gated to pro­tect women against sex­ual abuse in any form. He com­mented it was clear that the ex­plicit images were of a pri­vate na­ture and that it was for their en­joy­ment while they were still a cou­ple. “The con­duct of the re­spon­dent (the man) spreads the in­sub­or­di­na­tion of women in so­ci­ety and, if not stopped in its tracks, will un­doubt­edly per­pet­u­ate the threat to the self-de­ter­mi­na­tion of women in so­ci­ety.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa

© PressReader. All rights reserved.