THE COST OF ABUSE

A man in the UK has found himself on the hook for more than R2m after uploading intimate images of his former partner online

The problem of how to deal with so-called revenge porn has taken a new turn, with the first UK case in which damages have been awarded by a judge. As a start, the high court judge hearing the matter, Justine Thornton, said the term “revenge porn” conveys the impression that a victim “somehow deserved what happened to them”, and that she preferred to use the phrase “image-based abuse”.

She added that the case before her, of a woman wanting damages for such abuse, was thought to be the first of its type heard in the UK civil courts.

The woman, identified only as FGX, brought the civil action against her former boyfriend, Stuart Gaunt. He had been found liable for damages after he failed to provide any defence to her claim, and the case before Thornton was to establish the amount of damages he should pay.

Gaunt, who was investigated after FGX’s complaint, was convicted of voyeurism under the country’s Sexual Offences Act, receiving a two-year suspended sentence. But if he thought that was the end of the matter, he hadn’t reckoned with FGX.

In her damages claim, she said that about a year after she and Gaunt began living together, she found a microscopic camera hidden in the bathroom of their home. She then discovered that he had filmed her naked in the bathroom, while she was showering, and while she slept topless.

(It’s likely that the only reason he hadn’t posted footage from their bedroom was because FGX, as a “committed

Christian”, had said the couple could live together, but not have sex until they married.)

Gaunt went on to upload the images to a porn website, along with a photograph of her face so that she could be recognised. She also discovered screenshots of payment platform websites, leading her to believe that Gaunt had made money from uploading the images.

She said it was “an awful betrayal ”— he had filmed her “most intimate moments”, then “gleefully” loaded them onto “sick websites”.

Gaunt had an obligation of trust and confidence in relation to intimate and personal matters, as well as information that came into his possession as a result of their relationship. She had a reasonable expectation that what happened in their home would remain confidential and private, and his distribution of the images breached the trust obligations owed to her.

When the damages issue was argued earlier this year, Gaunt did not attend, and the matter was heard without him.

‘Chronic’ PTSD

The court heard of the psychological trauma FGX experienced, and that she had been diagnosed with anxiety and depression as well as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). She had become a recluse and was reluctant to leave home. She felt unable to trust anyone.

“When I have travelled I become paranoid about cameras being hidden and filming me,” she said. “I will look everywhere to try and find cameras in airconditioning grates and behind seats. I will not try on clothes in a shop because of a fear that I am being filmed. The fear does not leave you and is constantly there. I am always worried that somebody is watching me that I do not know about.

“I still have nightmares about what happened. I wake up in a sweat.”

FGX said she believed there were still images of her on the internet, causing her “immense distress”. The police couldn’t delete any images during Gaunt’s criminal trial and, as they had therefore been available online for a long time, she believed the images “may have been replicated many times over”.

Expert evidence backed up claims about the extent of her distress, with one psychiatrist saying hers was one of a minority of cases in which PTSD “becomes chronic”, causing “an enduring personality change” and with relapses very likely.

Thornton found that the impact on FGX was “profound”, and awarded general damages of £60,000, including an award for aggravated damages. In response to FGX’s further claim for special damages related to treatment and removing the images from the internet, among others, the court awarded an additional £37,041, bringing the total to just over £97,000 (about R2.12m).