kevon.felmine@guardian.co.tt
Recording videos and images and sharing them on social media as a last resort to inaction by public authorities could land you in prison under the proposed amendments to the Sexual Offences Act.
During yesterday’s meeting of the Special Select Committee on the Sexual Offences (No 3) Bill, 2021, Independent Senator Paul Richards and Opposition Senator Jayanti Lutchmedial raised the issue of how the legislation interprets people’s intention when recording and sharing content.
The Bill seeks to establish the offences of voyeurism and the capturing and distribution of intimate images without consent.
The penalties proposed in the legislation for those found guilty are $250,000 and two years’ imprisonment or $750,000 and five years in prison upon conviction or indictment.
Lutchmedial shared a past case in which a police officer was involved with a 14-year-old schoolgirl. She said the girl’s parents reported it to the police station several times, but officers did nothing until a villager recorded a video and published it to shame the police.
“Yes, it embarrassed the child. It embarrassed the officer, but it actually got him charged, so it really does have a grey area that would depend on prosecutorial discretion.”
However, the Public Defenders’ Office says while some people’s intent may be altruistic in shaming the police into action, it can also cause humiliation to the alleged perpetrators.
Deputy Public Defender Raphael Morgan said this could cause society to shun them.
“Unfortunately, those acts can be caught by the legislation, and it is a matter of how the prosecution wishes to proceed and whether they wish to charge and pursue the conviction against them. But the legislation is wide enough to capture those persons, and unfortunately, social justice warriors may be caught in the net,” Raphael said.
Chief Public Defender Hasine Shaikh said that while people may share a video out of anger, they must know the effects of placing such content in a group chat. She said there must be some limit.
While the legislation covers child victims, Public Defender II Khadija Beddeau said it does not address youth offenders. Beddeau said it was a concern, as the issues of taking and sharing intimate images were very common among teenagers. She referenced similar legislation in New South Wales, Australia, which allows the Director of Public Prosecutions to determine whether to charge a youth offender.
She said in many cases involving youth offenders, the sentencing process under the act is punitive.
“We can consider a rehabilitative approach for youth offenders in these sorts of circumstances. In New South Wales, there was a category of exemption whereby consideration is given to the circumstances in which the images were taken, the nature and content of the image, the age, the intellectual capacity, vulnerability, and other relevant circumstances the person depicted and the degree to which the accused person affects the privacy of the persons depicted in the image,” Beddeau said.
While there are exemptions for several bodies under the legislation, traditional media was left out.
Publishers and Broadcasters Association member Suzanne Sheppard said the issue of sharing images impacts directly on journalists. Sheppard said the media industry evolved significantly in recent times with the emergence of social media, with some content creators claiming to practice as citizen journalists. Therefore, she said there was a need for the definition of a journalist.
She said traditional media involuntarily receives many images that may fall under the realm of the legislation because people often try to shake authorities into action.
She said by the time images became viral on social media, media houses had already received them.
Another concern was how these activities could lead to self-censorship among journalists as they worry about possible criminalisation while investigating stories.
Without an exemption, she said the Bill directly impacts the functions of the media.
