The Crocels Trolling Academy

Centre for Research into Online Communities and E-Learning Systems

Ty Morgannwg, PO Box 674, Swansea, SA1 9NN, Wales, GB
Telephone: 01792 345105 Web: www.trollingacademy.org
23 June 2014
Strategy and Policy Directorate
Crown Prosecution Service
Rose Court
2 Southwark Bridge
London
SE1 9HS
Dear Sirs,
Re: Offences for prosecuting Porn E-Vengers
I was actively involved in the drawing up of the CPSs guidance on offences
involving social media, arguing that the law is sufficient to solve the problem,
despite opportunist members of Parliament claiming otherwise.
I now understand that politicians are trying to do the same with what they called
Revenge Pornography, which to experts like myself is known to be carried out by
a type of person called a Porn E-Venger often part of a concerted cyberhickery
campaign against their target. The type of trolling done by Porn E-Vengers is called
mobiling because they often rely on mobile devices to conduct their acts.
I need not say that many provisions like the Protection of Children Act 1978,
Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the
Communications Act 2003 can be used in most cases. Politicians say this does not
include those instances where a person posts pornographic images online of their
partner after a break up. They say this justifies more law, but I disagree and think
the CPS should look to conduct test cases using the provisions of the Sexual
Offences Act 2003 on voyeurism in the first instance as follows:
Section 67(1) could be used to prosecute someone (C) who has received a
pornographic images of a persons (A) ex-partner (B) taken for the private
enjoyment of A and B and that C knows was intended to be private.
Section 67(2) could be used to prosecute someone (A) who distributes
pornographic image of their ex-partner (B) via a public communications
network (i.e. equipment) for the enjoyment of a third party (C) where A
knows the image was intended to be private. In this provision sexual
gratification could mean gratification as a result of the image being sexual
exploitative, even if the gratification is not based on sexual feelings but
enjoyment of causing harm to others (i.e. trolling for the lulz).
Section 67(3) could be used where someone (A) makes a pornographic video
or image of another (B) for the purpose of posting it on a website for others
to watch without the consent of B. In the same as the previous provision,
sexual gratification may be seen as gratification from the distribution of a
sexual image to Bs detriment (i.e. for the lulz).

I hope you will be able to take my comments on board so that victims of Porn E-
Vengers can get justice now, rather than waiting for it to fit in with the agenda of
politicians, as had been tried in the case of the abusive forms of Internet trolling.
Yours faithfully,

Jonathan Bishop LLM FRAI FBCS CITP