Stephen Bear Found Guilty Of Sex Tape Offences – How Can The Civil Court Help?

Stephen Bear videoed himself and Georgia Harrison engaging in sexual activity in his home without Ms Harrison’s knowledge or consent. When Ms Harrison became aware of the footage, she asked Mr Bear not to share it.

Ms Harrison told the Court that she had seen Mr Bear sending the footage to someone on WhatsApp. It was then uploaded to the online subscription site, OnlyFans.

Mr Bear denied all charges telling the jury that he had deleted the footage in August 2020 and had not sent it to others. The jury found Mr Bear guilty of all charges including disclosing private sexual photos and films with intent to cause distress and voyeurism. Mr Bear is to return to Court on 31 January 2023 for sentencing.

What is particularly interesting in this case is the profit made by Mr Bear from the footage. Whilst the criminal Court does consider the damage caused when sentencing, Ms Harrison is only likely to receive a nominal sum and not an account of the profit made by Mr Bear.

There is however the possibility of Ms Harrison seeking an account of profits through the civil Courts. Ms Harrison could do this by pursuing a claim for the misuse of private information. The statutory framework for the law on the misuse of private information derives from the Human Rights Act 1998  and the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

Article 8 of the ECHR protects a person’s right “to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence”. In essence, this provision seeks to protect a person’s “private life” from unwanted intrusion. In Ms Harrison’s case, the information (being the footage of her engaging in sexual activity) would fall into the “private life” definition present within Article 8.

To be successful in a claim for misuse of private information Ms Harrison would need to prove that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information concerned.

Eady J in the case of Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd stated:

This was exactly the case with Ms Harrison. She was engaging in sexual activity with her then-boyfriend in his home. There would therefore be a reasonable expectation of privacy in the footage.

The Court would then need to conduct a balancing exercise in respect of the competing rights of each of the parties involved. For example, Mr Bear’s right to freedom of speech (Article 10 of ECHR) v Ms Harrison’s right to a private life (Article 8 of ECHR). The degree to which the disclosure is in the public interest is a key factor in balancing the competing rights under Article 8 and Article 10 of the ECHR.

It cannot be said that Mr Bear’s actions in distributing the footage were in the public interest. He appears to have distributed the footage purely for his own financial gain. On this basis alone, the Courts are likely to conclude that Ms Harrison’s right under Article 8 takes priority over Mr Bear’s right under Article 10.

There are a number of remedies that would be available to Ms Harrison if she were successful in her claim. Such remedies could include an injunction preventing Mr Bear from distributing the footage further and against any third party that has received a copy of the footage, damages for injury to feelings/distress, an account of profits made by Mr Bear in disseminating the footage and the delivery up of and/or destruction of the footage.

There are also a number of other privacy claims that Ms Harrison could plead in addition to misuse of private information to strengthen her claim, including breach of confidence, breach of contract, and breach of UK GDPR.

Comments

It is not just the criminal Courts that can assist victims of revenge porn. There are also several different remedies at the civil Court’s disposal to assist victims. If you have been the victim of revenge porn it is important to seek legal advice as soon as possible to see what options are available to assist you.