Porn abusers of revenge are allowed to maintain explicit images of their victims because prosecutors do not order their removal

Porn criminals of revenge are allowed to maintain explicit images of their victims on their devices because prosecutors failed to obtain orders that required their elimination.

In the last six months, of the 98 cases of abuse of intimate images, they concluded in the courts of magistrates in England and Wales, only three led to a deprivation order.

On the contrary, other cases that involved digital devices, including crimes related to indecent images of children, deprivation orders were made consistently.

A victim in a case where the author was not made to eliminate sex videos said: “They spend my skin to know that they could still be watching these, much less upload them on the Internet again.”

Of the 98 cases concluded in the courts of magistrates, 54 defendants received restriction orders that lasted from one to five years.

The three cases in which prosecutors requested deprivation orders included one in December in Bromley, southeast London.

The magistrates ordered that a 27 -year -old man be “deprived of the photographs used in the course of the crime.”

He was also given a suspended sentence of eight weeks and a five -year restriction order.

Of 98 cases of abuse of intimate images concluded in the courts of magistrates in England and Wales in the last six months, only three led to a deprivation order

In another case in Hull, in September, a man was imprisoned for 22 weeks and his phone had to be destroyed.

In both cases, men had also been convicted of an additional crime, harassment, as well as the crime of the intimate image.

Prosecutors also requested an order of deprivation of Chester magistrates for a man convicted of sharing intimate photos.

He also received a suspended sentence of 12 months and 200 hours of unpaid work in October. It is not clear if the order was made.

The shocking findings reported for the first time by the ObserverIt highlights the systemic failures of the courts to impose orders and prosecutors to request them.

The Crown Prosecutor’s Office said that more measures must be taken to “stop retaining these images and continue satisfying their crimes.”

In a case earlier this month, a 35 -year -old man from Swansea was rebuked by the Court of Magistrates for the “deeply disturbing ‘behavior designed to blackmail and control’ emotionally to his victim.

He was given a rehabilitation order, a suspended sentence of six months and a three -year restriction order, but without deprivation order, which means that the police had no legal power to retain and clean their device.

The three cases in which prosecutors requested deprivation orders included one in Bromley, southeastern London, one in Hull and another in Chester

In a similar vain, a 32 -year -old man from Crawley, West Sussex, was imprisoned for 26 weeks and was given a restriction order until 2029 for sharing private sexual photos of his ex -girlfriend, but without a order of deprivation.

Elena Michael, from the #Notyourporn campaign group, said that allowing the perpetrators to maintain images and their devices meant that they were being “returned the weapon” with which they used to commit their crime.

She said the group worked with 450 victims and found that the focus of the subject was inconsistent.

The inconsistencies are revealed as the Government prepares to introduce its new bill of crime and surveillance to Parliament, which seeks to harden the law by sharing intimate images without consent.