High Court grants privacy injunction against revenge porn threat.
Last Saturday an actor obtained a privacy injunction in the High Court against a former lover who had threatened to publish online photos and videos of nudity and sexual activity.
The defendant had threatened to post the images on social media, or try to get them published in magazines, by way of revenge for the actor having ended their relationship and with a view (perhaps optimistically) to persuading him to resume it.
The defendant had also sent an email to a former partner of the actor, giving graphic details of alleged sexual activity by the actor while he was in a relationship with the defendant, and later also sent that former partner two explicit videos.
The application was made without notice to the defendant, because of the risk that notifying the defendant that the application was going to be made might itself have resulted in the very publication the claimant was trying to prevent.
The judgment providing the reasons why the interim injunction had been granted was handed down yesterday. Mr Justice Popplewell, unsurprisingly, found that the photographs and videos were taken in circumstances where the actor "had a strong case for asserting that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy and in circumstances attracting confidentiality".
The Court accepted that the images and information involved intimate, graphic and sexually explicit material of a highly sensitive and personal nature and that the effect of disclosure would be highly damaging to the claimant both emotionally and financially, and that financial compensation after the event would not therefore have been an adequate remedy.
This is yet another reminder that the Courts are frequently willing to act quickly and decisively (including at weekends) where there is a threat of a serious invasion of a person's privacy, whether by the media or by a private individual threatening to publish such material online.
A link to the judgment can be found here.