A 21-year-old has been sentenced to 24 months' intensive supervision in the first such prosecution in New Zealand. But one of his victims questions his right to name suppression. Gill Higgins reports.
In the North Shore District Court today, Judge Paul Murray sentenced the man to 24 months' intensive supervision, with reparations to be determined, in the first prosecution of its kind for sharing pornographic images created by deepfake technology.
Next week: Watch Gill Higgins' in-depth story on deepfake and full interview with Summer Murphy on TVNZ+.
One of the victims gave permission today for her name, Summer Murphy, to be published. The offender has interim name suppression and the other three victims have permanent name suppression.
Prior to the sentence being handed out, Summer Murphy read her victim impact statement.
“He did not just hurt me; he changed the course of my life,” she said. “I am afraid when people open their phones near me, afraid they might find what he did to me. I have panic attacks. I have reduced social contact. I don’t post things online. Sometimes I wish that I don’t wake up.”
The offending took place from June to October 2024 and involved four young women. The man was 19 when he began to take photos from the women's social media accounts, manipulating them to create explicit images which he then shared widely online.
He was granted name suppression which Summer Murphy opposed in her victim impact statement, saying, “I haven’t been able to fully tell my story because he had name suppression, yet his actions took away my safety, my privacy, my sense of control, and my peace.
“He slandered my name. He used it publicly and tied it to things that do not represent who I am. I feel that [his] being named is part of taking responsibility for his actions. I feel that keeping this off his record would protect him while I continue to carry the damage.”
Summer told 1News the man manipulated hundreds of her photos, using apps to seemingly remove her clothing. The images showed her on holiday with her family, out with friends. In the manipulated images, he’d appear naked while everyone else in the image was fully clothed. In one, Summer is sitting on her dad Barry's lap, toasting marshmallows around a campfire, naked. “To even paint my dad in that kind of image is disgusting,” she says.
Seeing herself in the manipulated images, which appeared very realistic, devastated Summer. “In some of them, I was just 14 or 15.”
'I saw a confident young woman become withdrawn'
The pictures were sent to her friends and family, even her friends’ parents. They were also posted on an international pornography site, attached to Summer's name. She began getting messages from strangers requesting more pictures or that she appear in a pornographic movie.
The offending and its aftermath sent Summer, who was 19 at the time, into a depressed state. In his victim impact statement to the judge, Summer’s dad Barry Murphy said, “Perhaps the most difficult aspect of this ordeal has been watching my daughter suffer and feeling unable to fully protect her. I saw a confident young woman become anxious and withdrawn."
Her parents arranged therapy for her which she is still undergoing.
Seeing Summer’s distress spurred Barry Murphy into action. An IT expert, he used his skills to eventually track down the offender and secure a confession, which he was able to pass on to police.
Harmful intent difficult to prove
The man was charged with intent to cause harm by creating and posting digital images, a crime under the Harmful Digital Communications Act, 2015. The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment or a fine of $50,000.
There were five charges in total. As well as the charges laid by the three other female victims, one was laid by Barry Murphy for causing harm as a result of the photos that showed him with his “naked” daughter.
Police were only able to prosecute because the confession obtained by Summer and Barry Murphy showed intent to cause harm. Such intent is notoriously hard to prove.
Alleged offenders can argue their actions were intended as a joke, or they didn’t think they’d be taken seriously. For this reason, prosecutions involving digitally manipulated pornographic images are rare. Lawyer Arran Hunt, an expert in digital law, believes our legal framework is failing.
New 'Deepfake' law looks imminent
That could be changing. A bill for a new law giving victims greater legal protection passed its first reading in parliament this week, with unanimous support.
Act MP Laura McClure’s Deepfake Digital Harm and Exploitation Bill will make creating, sharing or selling sexually explicit deepfakes without consent a criminal offence.
It expands the legal definition of an "intimate visual recording" to include images that are "created, synthesised or altered". This would mean there would be no need for victims to prove intent to cause harm.
Next week: Watch Gill Higgins' in-depth story on deepfake and full interview with Summner Murphy on TVNZ+.
SHARE ME