The convict was ordered to pay a compensation of D750,000 to the victim, failure which he shall serve an additional term of one year imprisonment which shall run consecutively. The sentence followed the plea of guilt of the convict.
The court also ordered that the nude videos and screenshots which have been unlawfully circulated be forfeited to the state. The convict or any other person in the custody of the videos or screenshots are strictly prohibited from any further reproduction, sharing or circulation of the same in any form, whether digital, print or other medium. Any breach of the order shall constitute contempt of court. The prosecution shall take all the necessary steps to remove all copies of the videos and screenshots in the possession of the convict or any third party under their control.
The court had reiterated that the misuse of technology to degrade, humiliate or expose others will attract serious consequences.
In sentencing the convict, the presiding magistrate told the court that having pleaded guilty to both counts, and the court having entered conviction upon his unequivocal admission of the facts, the matter then proceeded to sentencing.
In determining the appropriate sentence, the magistrate stated, the court was guided by established sentencing principles applicable within The Gambia, such as, retribution, deterrence (both specific and general), rehabilitation of the offender, protection of the public and compensation to victims where appropriate.
The presiding magistrate added that the court further adopted the structural approach of assessing culpability and harm before weighing aggravating and mitigating factors as it is in the sentencing guidelines.
“In assessing culpability, the court finds that the act of the convict was willful and deliberate, involving the conscious publication of a nude video of the victim, the use of electronic platforms such as WhatsApp and Facebook ensured wide and rapid dissemination. Again, the circulation of the video to several individuals including the father of the victim is a clear indication of intentional distribution rather than an isolated lapse,” the magistrate posited.
She further asserted that in her view, the convict’s action was therefore a calculated misuse of digital technology, thereby placing offences committed within the category of high culpability. She stated that the harm caused was equally high and far-reaching, because the victim’s dignity, privacy and reputation had been gravely violated. The nature of digital publication, she declared, renders the harm potentially permanent and incapable of full recall.
“Given that the offence carries serious emotional and psychological consequences, it contributes to a broader societal harm by fostering fear and insecurity, particularly among women in relationships. The court accordingly classifies this as a case of high level of harm,” said the magistrate.
She further adduced that the court noted the following aggravating factors: wide dissemination of the material through social media platforms, the enduring and irreversible nature of the harm caused, the prevalence of such offences, calling for deterrent sentencing and the implicit breach of trust associated with the nature of the material.
On the mitigating factors, the magistrate explained that the convict was a first-time offender. He pleaded guilty and did not waste the time of the court. He expressed remorse and apologised to both the court and the victim. He is 22 years old and a fisherman of modest means. “Whereas the court believes that the mitigating factors invite some measure of leniency, they do not outweigh the seriousness of the offence or the need for deterrence and societal protection,” she added.
She asserted that the court considered it necessary to make an observation of general application, particularly the young persons in our society. She lamented that the increasing use of digital platforms in intimate relationships calls for a heightened sense of caution, restraint and personal responsibility. “The sharing of private or intimate material, even within the confines of a relationship, carries significant risks if trust is broken. Young people are therefore urged to exercise discretion and uphold values of self-respect, discipline and dignity in their interactions,” the magistrate told the court.
However, she posited, it must be firmly stated that such cautionary advice does not diminish the protection afforded by the law, and that the unlawful publication or circulation of private and intimate material remains a serious criminal offence, and no prior conduct on the part of a victim can justify or excuse such violation.
DSP Y. S. Colley represented the IGP.
