Sheffield Crown Court: Jail for man who shared sexual pictures of women despite three warnings to stop

‘This has taken over my life’

Sending defendant, James Hackett, to begin his sentence for one offence of disclosing a private sexual image with intent to cause distress, Judge Rachael Harrison told him: “In my judgement, this was conduct intended to maximise humiliation and distress.”

During a June 1, 2023 sentencing hearing, Sheffield Crown Court was read a statement from the complainant, who cannot be named for legal reasons, in which she detailed the devastating, and prolonged, impact his actions have had on her mental health, and her ability to work.

“This has taken over my life,” she said, adding: “I’ve been put on to medication for my mental health, which I’ve never had before. This is all since the incident.”

“I feel I can’t go out any more, I even have anxiety in my own home. I should not feel like that,” continued the complainant.

Conduct continued despite police caution

Prosecuting barrister, Samuel Ponniah, told the court that the police became aware that Hackett, now aged 36, had shared ‘intimate’ images of the complainant on social media sites in August 2019, and he received a caution for his conduct.

Mr Ponniah told the court that despite the warning Hackett was given through his police caution, he not only went on to continue to share intimate images of this complainant through a fake Facebook account months later, but he also uploaded sexual images of a second woman in similar circumstances.

Hackett, of Southgate, Eckington, was sentenced for an identical offence against the second woman in October 2020, when he received a sentence of 18 weeks’ custody, suspended for 12 months.

The defendant was less than three months into that suspended sentence, when he resumed sending sexual pictures of the first complainant, to people she knew, including a work colleague using a Facebook account in which he pretended to be the complainant by using her name and picture, the court heard.

Mr Ponniah said the complainant’s colleague detected a ‘red flag’ in the communication she was having with Hackett, via the fake Facebook account, when he enquired as to which part of the business she worked in, a piece of information the woman believed her colleague would know.

The complainant was subsequently made aware of the fake account, and she contacted Hackett and said she would go to the police.

“He said he was sorry for what he had done, and asked her not to go to the police. He said he had deleted everything and had been utterly stupid,” Mr Ponniah said, adding that after the complainant received that response from Hackett, she decided not to go to the police.

However, Hackett still continued to distribute sexual images of the complainant, and some months later, the complainant subsequently became aware that someone was pretending to be her on social media and was distributing the same images, the court heard.

Hackett was charged with breaching a suspended sentence order and an offence of disclosing a private sexual image with intent to cause distress, relating to conduct carried out against the complainant following his conviction involving the second complainant.

The defendant initially pleaded not guilty to the offence, before eventually admitting to it on the day of trial.

‘He has brought everything that must follow upon himself’

Defending, Rebecca Tanner, said Hackett accepts responsibility for his actions and knows he has ‘brought everything that must follow upon himself – and knows there is absolutely no excuse for what happened’.

"He would say that he was emotionally struggling,” added Ms Tanner.

Responding to Ms Tanner’s mitigation concerning Hackett’s mental state at the time of his offending, Judge Harrison interjected: “The fact is: he said he would stop, and he didn’t. This was a prolonged course of action. Whatever difficulties he was having…he was given the chance to stop by the victim.”

Ms Tanner continued her mitigation by saying Hackett’s offending behaviour ‘goes back some time,’ and acknowledged this means the proceedings have also been ‘hanging over the head’ of the complainant as a consequence.

Judge Harrison replied: “That’s quite right, however he did not plead guilty until his day of trial. That is not indicative of remorse, at all.”

Ms Tanner also told the court that there is a ‘more positive side’ to Hackett adding: “He has worked as a coach driver since 2014, the reference from his employer describes him as hard-working…as someone that is reliable, and relied upon.”

“He’s never experienced a custodial environment, he’s inevitably going to lose his job. Whilst I accept that this has all been brought on by his own actions, this [custody] will have a significant impact upon him.”

As she explained her reason for sentencing Hackett to 16 months’ custody, Judge Harrison told him that his actions had clearly resulted in ‘very significant pyschological harm’ being caused to the first complainant.

“This was a prolonged course of action. It was planned and repeated…your victim gave you a chance to stop, you said would stop. You did not.”

“In my judgement custody is unavoidable for someone who is on a suspended sentence, and commits the same offence again. Appropriate punishment can only be achieved with immediate custody,” Judge Harrison added, as she sent Hackett to begin his prison sentence. She told him there would be no separate penalty for breaching the suspended sentence order.