Posted by ccld201
7 March 2025The rise in digital technologies has led to an alarming increase in the non-consensual creation, sharing, and threatened disclosure of intimate images as a strategy of coercive control.[1] Alleged perpetrators of domestic abuse now seek to use these images to challenge victimsâ accounts in the family court, raising significant legal and ethical concerns. Women are disproportionately targeted by non-consensual intimate image sharing and threats of exposure, and the harm they suffer is exacerbated by societal and legal biases surrounding female sexuality.[2] This is a clear women’s rights issue and should be recognised as a form of gender-based violence under the Istanbul Convention.
In the recent case of Re M [2022],[3] a case management hearing in the Family Court, Mrs Justice Knowles considered the admissibility of intimate images in fact-finding hearings, specifically where parties seek to use such images to support or rebut allegations of domestic abuse in child arrangement cases. The judgment provides guidance designed to limit the âindiscriminate useâ of such images,[4] but fails to engage with the serious human rights implications, particularly the gendered and coercive dimensions of such images.
Article 3 ECHR, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, is an absolute right, meaning it cannot be lawfully restricted, and the European Court of Human Rights recognises domestic abuse as engaging this right.[5] Intimate image abuse, as a strategy of coercive control, can therefore amount to degrading treatment under Article 3. The use of intimate images in court can facilitate a continuation of abuse, allowing perpetrators to intimidate, humiliate, or coerce victims into unfavourable legal arrangements, including unsafe child contact arrangements. Re M fails to fully engage with this reality, overlooking how coercion and power imbalances shape the use of such evidence. Without stronger safeguards, the family court system risks becoming a vehicle for continued abuse. Given that UK courts are public authorities under the Human Rights Act[6] and must comply with Convention rights, the potential for the Family Court to be implicated in the continuation of this violation of Article 3 ECHR is a significant concern.
The risk of retraumatising victims by admitting intimate images as evidence is a key concern in Re M.[7] While the judgment recognises the distress such evidence can cause, it still permits their use if deemed necessary and relevant.[8] This creates a potential conflict with Article 6 ECHR, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. Being forced to revisit humiliating or coercively obtained intimate images in court can impair a victimâs ability to provide clear and consistent testimony, weakening their ability to give their best evidence.[9] Beyond re-traumatisation, intimate images can also be weaponised to discredit victims. Gendered stereotypes – such as the sexual double standard, which judges women more harshly than men for comparable sexual behaviour – create widespread victim-blaming.[10] Much like sexual history evidence in rape trials, intimate images may be used to undermine a victimâs credibility, shifting focus away from the abusive context in which the images were created or shared.[11] This risks distorting judicial decision-making and reinforcing gendered biases, even where the images are submitted in support of a victimâs case.
The Re M guidance also fails to address the issue of coerced images. Research consistently shows that in abusive relationships, images are often taken without knowledge or consent and also frequently depict non-consensual sexual activity.[12] Yet Re M permits their use in fact-finding when they are deemed ânecessary and proportionateâ,[13] where they may then be presented to disprove allegations of domestic abuse. This overlooks the concept of âchronic sexual violation,â where victims appear to be compliant or even willing participants in abusive dynamics due to prolonged coercion.[14] Presenting such images to support claims of a âlovingâ relationship or as evidence that alleged sexual violation was in fact consensual risks further distorting the court’s understanding of coercive control.[15] This could potentially lead to decisions that overlook the abusive nature of the images, thus risking the integrity of the legal process and outcomes in child arrangement cases where domestic abuse is alleged.
The admissibility of intimate images raises serious concerns under Article 8 ECHR, which protects the right to private and family life, including personal dignity, which the European Court of Human Rights has consistently recognised as integral to privacy protections.[16] Even with procedural safeguards, the viewing or discussion of intimate images in court constitutes a serious invasion of privacy and an affront to dignity. Re M acknowledges the potential distress caused and seeks to limit the number of images permitted. However, it fails to fully recognise the compounding harm that may be inflicted. For instance, a victim may have been coerced into taking intimate images as part of an abusive relationship. Even if the court restricts who views them or limits how many are shown, presenting them as evidence reinforces the original abuse by mirroring the powerlessness, humiliation, and attack on dignity experienced at the time.
Intimate image abuse aligns with the Istanbul Conventionâs definition of gender-based violence that acts to prevent women from achieving gender equality. Re M implicitly accepts that intimate images may be relevant to fact-finding where there are allegations of domestic abuse, thus failing to fully engage with their coercive and gendered nature, the risk of retraumatisation, the erosion of privacy and dignity, and the impact on fair trial rights. This reflects a broader pattern of gender-based discrimination and therefore engages Article 14 ECHR, which prohibits discrimination in the protection of Convention rights. By permitting the use of intimate images in ways that disproportionately harm women, the legal system undermines the protections afforded to victims under the Convention rights meant to safeguard them.
Recognising intimate image abuse as a form of gender-based violence would reinforce the need for stronger judicial safeguards and a more victim-centred approach. On International Womenâs Day, it is crucial to acknowledge that the admissibility of intimate images is not merely an issue of privacy, fair trial rights, or protection from degrading treatment, it is a womenâs rights issue that demands urgent attention. Admitting intimate images as evidence in family court proceedings reinforces deeply entrenched gendered harms, allowing courts to become sites where coercive control is reproduced rather than dismantled. Recognising intimate image abuse as gender-based violence under the Istanbul Convention would strengthen the case for more robust safeguards, ensuring that survivors are protected rather than re-victimised in legal proceedings.
Charlie Bishop is a lecturer at the Exeter Law School and she researches gender-based violence.
The illustration of this post was designed with AI.
[1] D Cuomo and N Dolci, âNew tools, old abuse: Technology-Enabled Coercive Control (TECC)â Geoforum 126 (2021) 224; M Dragiewicz and others, âTechnology facilitated coercive control: Domestic violence and the competing roles of digital media platformsâ (2018) 18 Feminist Media Studies 609; D Woodlock, âThe abuse of technology in domestic violence and stalkingâ (2017) 23 Violence Against Women 584â602.
[2] N Henry and A Flynn, âImage-based sexual abuse: Online distribution channels and illicit communities of supportâ (2019) 25 VAW 1932, 1933-1934; C Uhl and others, âAn examination of nonconsensual pornography websitesâ (2018) 26 Feminism & Psychology 50. Figures from the UK’s Revenge Porn Helpline show that 75% of 1800 calls over six months were from women: Government Equalities Office Press Release, ‘Hundreds of Victim-Survivors of Revenge Porn Seek Support from Helpline’ (20 August 2015).
[3] Re M (A Child â Private Law Children Proceedings – Case Management – Intimate Images) [2022] EWHC 986 (Fam).
[4] Ibid [76].
[5] Opuz v Turkey, Application No. 33401/02, 2009; E. S. and Others v Slovakia, Application No. 8227/04, 2009; Tunikova and Others v Russia, Application No.55974/16, 2021.
[6] Article 6
[7] Re M, above n 4 [86].
[8] Ibid [68].
[9] See Practice Direction 12J – Child Arrangements and Contact Orders: Domestic Abuse and Harm.
[10] J Ringrose, K Regehr and S Whitehead, âTeen Girlsâ Experiences Negotiating the Ubiquitous Dick Pic: Sexual Double Standards and the Normalization of Image Based Sexual Harassmentâ (2021) 85 Sex Roles 558; DK Citron and MA Franks, âCriminalising Revenge Pornâ (2014) 49 Wake Forest Law Review 345; L Zvi and M Bitton, âPerceptions of victim and offender culpability in non-consensual distribution of intimate imagesâ (2021) 27 Psych Crim L 427.
[11] C McGlynn, âRape Trials and Sexual History Evidence: Reforming the Law on Third-Party Evidenceâ (2017) 81 The Journal of Criminal Law 5, 367-392.
[12] Cuomo and Dolci, n 1 above, 229; N Henry, C McGlynn, A Flynn, K Johnson, A Powell and A Scott Image-based Sexual Abuse: A Study on the Causes and Consequences of Non-consensual Nude or Sexual Imagery (Abingdon: Routledge, 1st edn, 2020) 8.
[13] Re M, above n 4 [87]
[14] T Palmer, âFailing to See the Wood for the Trees: Chronic Sexual Violation and Criminal Lawâ (2020) 84 The Journal of Criminal Law, 6, 573-595.
[15] See M Burton, âWhat can go wrong in child arrangement proceedings where there are allegations of domestic abuse?â (2021) 43 Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 4, 471-474; M Burton, âRevisiting fact-finding in child arrangement cases where there are allegations of domestic abuseâ (2022) 44 Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 3, 414â417.
[16] See SW v UK, Application No. 20166/92, 1995, where the Court first expressed its commitment to upholding dignity in a case concerning marital rape.