Meeting of the Parliament 28 January 2016
The Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Bill is vital legislation that has been introduced to improve how the justice system responds to abusive behaviour, including domestic abuse and sexual harm, following the publication of the “Equally Safe” report.
The bill has six parts and in the very short time that I have been allocated to speak I will concentrate on the part that deals with the non-consensual sharing of private consensual images, which is often referred to as revenge porn. As it stands, that aspect of the bill covers only disclosing or threatening to disclose without prior consent a photograph or film that shows or appears to show another person in an intimate situation. I support the creation of the new offence, as the law desperately needs to be updated to provide for the new digital age. However, it is far too narrow.
These days, everyone who owns a smartphone, tablet, or even a computer knows how to take a screenshot, and that presents a glaring loophole in the legislation, which is the sharing of text. Louise Johnson of Scottish Women’s Aid stated in evidence that specifying photographs and films
“excludes the sharing of private and intimate written and audio communications”.
The exposure or threat of sharing such communications has the same outcome: it is designed to humiliate and control the victim. Sometimes text and images are sent at the same time. Would we criminalise the image but not the abusive and threatening text? Those views were supported by many others, including Police Scotland, which believed that the offence
“should take cognisance of all forms of communication and distribution”.
I acknowledge that it was pointed out in evidence that the sending of abusive or threatening messages is already against the law. However, the sharing of intimate text is not. For example, the sharing of an intimate image on Facebook without consent would, under the bill, be a prosecutable offence. However, if someone shared an intimate conversation or a screenshot of an intimate conversation it would not be covered.
I argue that sharing that type of communication could have the same effect as sharing intimate images without consent. It could cause just as much fear, alarm or distress to the victim and, arguably, that would be the intention. To be clear, I am not advocating that we make the process of sexting between consenting adults illegal, nor am I suggesting that we criminalise those who are 16 or under who have engaged in the process consensually. In fact, in evidence the children’s commissioner Tam Baillie stated:
“I am not looking for any exemption for children or young people.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 24 November 2015; c 21.]
He emphasised the importance of education and said that it would be more effective in changing behaviours than criminalisation in non-malicious cases. He also said that the financial memorandum makes no provision for what could be a substantial education programme.
I am proposing that the sharing of sexts or any intimate communications non-consensually should be included in the definition of the offence in the bill, which would extend its present narrow definition. The bill does not go far enough to tackle the issue and I raised concerns about that during stage 1. I am considering submitting amendments at stage 2, so I would appreciate it if, when closing, the minister indicated his views on the points that I have raised.
16:29