Sir Mark Hendrick

I totally agree. Without getting too much into the politics of this, there is a very right-wing argument about what free speech means. When I first came to Parliament in the early 2000s, the then Prime Minister used to talk about rights and responsibilities. We all believe in rights, but they need to be balanced against responsibilities. The idea that somebody can print or send a person’s image and not take responsibility for the consequences is ridiculous. A lot of the current free speech arguments do not give that balance. We need to make sure that the young people and older people who are carrying out these acts know fully what they are doing, are willing to take responsibility for it and that the legal system is equipped to deal with it. As I said, research by Refuge showed that almost every survivor it supported was subjected to some form of technology-facilitated abuse. When we talk about stalking and abuse, most of us think of conventional stalking, but the digital world has transformed the ways in which perpetrators use online tools to commit intimate partner abuse and coercive control. In relationships with coercive control as an element, technology is often used to stalk, track and watch a partner’s location at all times. If this were carried out in person and a perpetrator physically followed an individual, that would cross the threshold for criminal prosecution. However, doing the same thing through a device in the digital world has become normalised and is not considered criminal. This encourages perpetrators to use technology to facilitate abuse as it is more convenient and often evades prosecution. Tech devices, such as Ring doorbells, AirTags and cloning devices are used to track and further stalk victims. In-person stalking is facilitated by the introduction of such devices. Lancashire constabulary has acknowledged the increasing use of social media and messaging apps in coercive control cases. All police forces in the north-west report a year-on-year increase in digital elements in VAWG cases. We are also seeing the rise of non-consensual intimate image sharing, often referred to as revenge porn. These images are often shared digitally on websites. The person in the image does not have ownership of that image, meaning that it is almost impossible for it to be taken down at the victim’s request. The Revenge Porn Helpline recorded 22,275 reports in 2024, which is a 20.9% increase from the previous year, and 412,000 intimate images have been reported since 2015. We have also seen an increase in online stalking, often through social media, catfishing and doxing, to share personal information such as addresses, workplaces, children’s schools, benefits and immigration status and much more. The issue of digital abuse is even more severe. Perpetrators are often unknown individuals or organisations, utilising online means such as dark web markets and unregulated servers. Strangers obtain images of women and monetise them. Some of the images are obtained or created to order, and there is increased use of AI to create deepfakes, undress victims and attach false bodies to victims’ faces. There is also a market for perpetrators to obtain lists of leaked passwords, which can then be used to hack into victims’ personal accounts, where personal photographs are often kept. Widely used dark web servers are monetised to exchange explicit images of women and girls. That represents a significant shift from earlier patterns, where such images were more commonly shared in private by an intimate partner in their social circle. In the majority of cases of digital abuse, the victims and perpetrators are not known to each other. The threat to share images also happens to under-age boys and girls, including threats to share falsified, AI-created images. That has led to suicide attempts, and, tragically, the completion of suicide in some cases. One of the most concerning developments in digital exploitation is under-the-radar abuse, where victims have no idea or knowledge that their private images have been accessed, copied or distributed without their consent. We are aware that the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, even of children, has led to perpetrators planning to gang rape some victims in those images. Currently, there is no legal definition of technology-facilitated abuse, and I hope that the Minister will address that point in her remarks. It means that it is almost impossible to prosecute, leaving victims without the ability to seek justice before the court. That situation should not be allowed to happen. Prosecutors have to rely on other legislation that is often outdated and does not take the growing digital world into account. That results in short sentences and no real justice for the victims. The difficulties of prosecution lead to a lack of understanding by both prosecutors and the police, as well as continued offences and reoffending, which pushes victims into stressful situations, contributing to mental health complexities. The volume of cases put to prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service is remarkably low, and convictions are even lower. Although we are seeing an increase in the reporting of digital abuse, it often leads to victims feeling disappointed and isolated, as the criminal justice process fails to deliver meaningful outcomes. The Computer Misuse Act 1990 is outdated, and the police are still having to apply the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 when considering seizing and examining devices. That is also outdated, as mobile phones and cloud-based storage did not exist in the way that they do today. Unfortunately, in some cases, victims need to collate their own evidence, as police forces do not have adequate training or an understanding of the severity of these issues. For example, a member of Girls Who Walk Preston, who is in the Public Gallery, has had a stalker for the last six years who the police have been unhelpful with, because she has not received death threats. The stalker lives under a different police force and refuses to admit that their accounts belong to them. The victim has been forced to collate her own evidence, to prove that the accounts do in fact belong to the stalker. That should not be necessary. It is an outrage, and she should not have to endure it. I supported a constituent who has been stalked at work, which again fell under a different police force. There is a clear gap in how different constabularies understand and can prosecute those cases. While the picture has been improving in that regard in Lancashire, it is not a country-wide push.