Having previously heavily criticised the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) over repeated refusals to direct revenge porn cases to crown court which has stronger sentencing powers, a judge has described this practice as, “sending out the wrong message to both victims and offenders”.
District Judge Michael Ranaghan made the remarks as a further such case appeared before him in Dungannon Magistrates’ Court.
Ethan McNally, from Dalriada Park, Dungannon is accused of disclosing a private sexual photograph of a female without her consent and to cause distress on September 20, 2020.
It is further alleged the 26-year-old misused a communications network by sending an indecent message.
A defence barrister entered not guilty pleas to both charges on his client’s behalf.
Noting the nature of allegations, Judge Ranaghan remarked: “Is there any point in me again saying I am not happy with these cases being heard in magistrates court? This is sending out the wrong message to both victims and offenders, especially given the world we currently live in and the way technology is going.”
He added: “There’ nothing I can do to interfere with that. It’s already in this court and I don’t have jurisdiction to refuse it.”
The case was adjourned until November 15 when a contest date is to be fixed.
Judge Ranaghan’s comments were again brought to the attention of the PPS, who were reminded of his previous concerns and that of others over decisions not to send revenge porn cases to crown court.
It was stressed the cases are occurring more frequently and the frustration of judges is increasing.
The concerns are legitimate concerns and the PPS have repeatedly been asked what consideration is being given to what judges are saying.
To date this has never been addressed and the only responses are an apparent PPS cut-and-paste of “carefully considering the available evidence and applying the test for prosecution”.
However, going by the frequency of such cases coming through the system the issue is far from abating and according to Judge Ranaghan the wrong message is being sent out.
The PPS were asked to comment on his specific remarks and why they are being ignored on top of all other similar commentary?
Instances such as ‘catfishing’ have led victims to self-harm and tragically some have taken their own lives.
Revenge porn is extremely close to this in terms of victim impact, so why is there such differentiation in PPS attitudes around direction?
Also is any consideration being given to altering the current position to make such cases indictable-only, particularly against the high frequency of occurrences and obvious concerns of judges?
A PPS spokesperson replied: “As this case is live before the court it would be inappropriate to comment. Speaking generally, we take the offence of disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress extremely seriously and recognise the grave impact these offences can have on victims.
“We consider each case individually and fully in line with the Code for Prosecutors. Where the legislation allows that an offence can be dealt with in either the Crown Court or Magistrates’ Court, decisions as to the appropriate venue are for the PPS. That decision will be informed by a range of factors relating to the circumstances of the offence and the offender and whether the sentencing powers in the Magistrates’ Court – which allow for a sentence of up to 6 months imprisonment – are likely to be sufficient.”
The spokesperson concluded: “Any amendment to the law to make this offence indictable only would be a matter for the legislature.”
The PPS were informed this still did not answer the question on taking onboard the concerns of multiple judges, but there has been no response at the time of publishing.
