This bill inserts two new offences into the Sexual Offences Act 2003: one criminalising the intentional taking or solicitation of sexually explicit photographs or films of another person without consent, and a second criminalising the creation or solicitation of digitally produced sexually explicit images (commonly described as deepfakes) without consent. Both offences require that the accused does not reasonably believe the subject consents and permit a defence where the accused proves a "reasonable excuse." Convicted persons can also be ordered by the court to delete copies they hold, including physical copies and files on devices, cloud services, or messaging platforms they control.
The measure broadens the Act's definition of an "intimate state" to capture other depictions a reasonable person would consider sexual by nature, and applies only to England and Wales, coming into force on passage. For practitioners this creates new charging options for image‑based sexual harm, new evidentiary questions about consent and reasonable belief, and practical limitations on the reach of court deletion orders when copies are held by third parties or distributed widely online.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates two narrowly worded offences: (1) intentionally taking or soliciting a sexually explicit photograph or film of another without consent, and (2) creating or soliciting the creation of digitally produced sexually explicit images without consent. Both include a statutory defence of "reasonable excuse" and allow courts to require convicted persons to delete copies they control.
Who It Affects
People who take, create, solicit or share sexually explicit images of others without consent (including digitally produced images), victims of image‑based abuse seeking criminal remedies, courts and prosecutors who will need to interpret consent and reasonable belief, and intermediaries to the extent convicted persons store content on platforms they control.
Why It Matters
The bill treats non‑consensual deepfakes and traditional image‑based abuse as criminal conduct under the Sexual Offences Act rather than as purely civil or platform-moderation issues. It also gives courts a targeted deletion power, but the order’s scope is limited to copies the offender controls — raising practical enforcement questions where content spreads beyond an offender’s devices.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill adds two separate statutory offences into the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The first offence targets the intentional taking or solicitation of sexually explicit photographs or films of another person without that person’s consent and where the actor does not reasonably believe there is consent.
The provision expressly allows the accused to rely on a defence of reasonable excuse and imports the existing exemptions listed in section 66C(1)–(5) to that offence. If convicted, the offender faces summary conviction penalties (the maximum term available for summary offences) or a fine, and the court may order deletion of any copies in the offender’s control.
The second inserted offence mirrors the first but focuses on digitally produced sexually explicit images and films — that is, images created by digital means rather than captured directly by a camera. It carries the same mens rea language (no reasonable belief in consent), the same statutory defence, the same summary conviction penalty framework, and the same deletion‑order power.
The bill also amends the statutory definitions so that the term "sexually explicit photograph or film" used in the new provisions ties back to the Act’s existing definition framework.Separately, the bill widens the Act’s conception of an "intimate state" by adding a catch‑all: material that a reasonable person would consider sexual because of its nature. That change expands coverage beyond classic nudity or sexual activity to other depictions whose sexual character is judged by a reasonable‑person standard.
The Act applies only in England and Wales and comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent.Taken together, the insertions create parallel routes to criminal liability for two overlapping fact patterns — traditional non‑consensual photography/filming and digitally fabricated explicit images — while preserving an evidentiary defence for those who can show a reasonable excuse. The deletion order is focused and targetted: it reaches copies an offender has or controls, including on devices and cloud or messaging services they control, but it does not, on its face, compel removal from third‑party platforms outside the offender’s control.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates two offences: (a) intentionally taking or soliciting sexually explicit photos or films of another without consent, and (b) creating or soliciting the creation of digitally produced sexually explicit images without consent; both are summary offences punishable up to the maximum term for summary convictions or a fine.
Both offences require that the defendant does not reasonably believe the subject consents and each statute expressly provides a defence allowing the defendant to prove they had a "reasonable excuse.", The statutory definition of "taking" expressly covers filming, recording, capturing or "digitally creating" a photograph or video, bringing some digitally produced work within the language used for the taking offence.
The exemptions listed in section 66C(1) to (5) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 are applied to the taking/soliciting offence by reference, preserving those pre‑existing carve‑outs for relevant cases.
On conviction, the court may order the offender to delete any copies they have taken or created, including physical copies and files on devices, cloud programmes, or messaging platforms that the offender controls.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Offence for taking or soliciting sexually explicit images without consent
This inserted provision sets out the actus reus and mens rea for intentionally taking or soliciting sexually explicit photographs or films of another person where that person does not consent and the actor does not reasonably believe they do. It makes clear that the defendant can raise a "reasonable excuse" defence and that the existing exemptions in section 66C(1)–(5) apply. Practically, this gives prosecutors a discrete statutory vehicle for conduct that previously might have been pursued under other provisions or left to civil remedies.
Offence for creating or soliciting digitally produced sexually explicit images
This new section mirrors the structure of the taking offence but targets digitally produced material — images or films created by digital means rather than captured directly. It criminalises both active creation and solicitation of such creations without consent, keeps the same defence architecture, and duplicates the court’s power to require deletion of copies in the offender’s control. The separate listing recognises digitally fabricated imagery as a distinct harm for criminal law purposes.
Definitions tie new offences back to existing statutory definitions and expand "taking"
The bill instructs that the terms used in the new sections refer back to the Act’s existing definitions of "sexually explicit photograph or film" and related language, as updated. Importantly, the bill defines "taking" to include both traditional capture (filming, recording) and the act of digitally creating a photograph or video — a drafting choice that narrows the distinction between captured and digitally manufactured images for purposes of the first offence and could influence charging decisions.
Broadened definition of ‘intimate state’
The Act adds a new paragraph to the statutory list of what counts as an "intimate state," extending coverage to "something else depicting the person that a reasonable person would consider to be sexual because of its nature." That change deliberately moves beyond enumerated physical states (like nudity) to a reasonable‑person test, widening the potential set of images that fall within the new offences.
Geographic extent, commencement and short title
The bill states that it extends to England and Wales only, comes into force immediately on the day it is passed, and may be cited by its short title. That makes the legislation operative on assent without a staged implementation period, leaving immediate operational and prosecutorial implications.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Victims of image‑based sexual abuse and non‑consensual deepfakes — they gain a clear criminal offence to pursue where images or digitally produced materials are made or solicited without consent, plus a targeted court power to order deletion of copies the offender controls.
- People targeted by digitally fabricated explicit imagery — the bill recognises digitally produced images as a standalone offence, offering an avenue for criminal redress distinct from civil claims or platform takedowns.
- Prosecutors and police — they receive a statutory offence tailored to non‑consensual image harms, which can make charging decisions more straightforward compared with relying on a patchwork of other offences.
Who Bears the Cost
- Individuals who create, solicit or share sexually explicit images of others — they face new criminal exposure; defendants will also bear the evidentiary burden of proving any "reasonable excuse" defence.
- Courts and criminal justice system — immediate commencement means prosecutors, courts and defence practitioners must quickly develop practice on consent standards, reasonable belief, and deletion orders, creating resource and training demands.
- Content creators and some journalists or researchers — artistic, investigatory or satirical uses that produce sexualised depictions could face legal risk where the content depicts real people or realistic likenesses, even if the creator’s intent was non‑exploitative.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill tries to reconcile two valid aims — robust protection of individuals’ sexual privacy and consent, and protection for legitimate expression, research and consensual adult content — but in doing so substitutes a broad, reasonable‑person standard and a new criminal offence structure that will push courts to balance victim protection against overbroad criminalisation and practical limits on removing widely distributed digital content.
The bill leaves several implementation questions unresolved. It creates overlapping language by both defining "taking" to include "digitally creating" and separately criminalising the creation of digitally produced images; that drafting raises potential double‑counting and uncertainty about which offence to charge when a deepfake is produced.
The mens rea framework — criminality where the defendant "does not reasonably believe" the subject consents — will put factual emphasis on communications, context and cultural norms, but the statute provides no guidance on what evidence satisfies reasonable belief or a reasonable excuse, leaving courts to develop tests and risking inconsistent outcomes.
The deletion power is narrowly framed: courts may order a convicted person to delete copies they possess or control, including files on devices, cloud programmes and messaging platforms under their control. That approach is practical and targetted but unlikely to halt redistribution on third‑party platforms or remove copies hosted by servers outside the offender’s control.
Enforcement will therefore commonly require platform cooperation or further civil remedies. Finally, the broadening of "intimate state" to anything a reasonable person would consider sexual introduces vagueness into the statute’s scope; that vagueness can protect victims by capturing non‑traditional sexualised depictions, but it also risks sweeping in borderline expressive or research uses and will demand principled judicial interpretation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.