# data[].attributes.body
When being grooming their victims their aim is to manipulate their target by gaining their trust so they can exploit or abuse them. It could involve exploiting someone into extreme views or telling them to take an extremist view by the person or group that wants to exploit them.

If caught and convicted prison sentences can be life sentences and they maybe required to sign as a terroist offender. On adult terrorists polygraph tests can also be used to find out more information about the group they belong to.

Many victims of terror related grooming are most probably impressionable individuals, through all the manipulating that the groomer causes could lead to PTSD, anxiety, sleeplessness, vulnerability and trust issues as a result of the exploitation.

# data[].attributes.body
Online terror and hacking groups have a variety of consequences dependant on what crime has been committed. Cyber crime can have not only financial losses for business accounts being hacked but also individual accounts.

Such as if an account information stolen from a bank and is then used a person account could then be hacked which could result in their credit rating being effected or money taken from their account could cause payments to default and in turn lead to bankruptcy.

This will then cause customer to lose trust in businesses and damage their reputation.

For businesses it can also cause loss of data and systems have to be reset and new software added so as to stop future hacking. Also will stop products and services until this has been done.

Cybercrime is a serious criminal offence which effects businesses and individuals, if caught it will lead to arrest, penalties,fines and a permanent criminal record.

# data[].attributes.body
The support provided by the Channel programme may include:

mentoring

mental health support such as counselling

education or career development support

online safety training for parents

Find out about the type of support offered through Prevent in our Case studies (ODT, 19.5 KB).

# data[].attributes.body
A 21-year-old man has been jailed for posting and sharing terrorist content online, as a result of a proactive Met Police Counter Terrorism investigation.

An investigation led by the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command exposed how Ayoub Nacir, 21 (26.07.2003) of southwest London was posting terrorist material on various social media accounts and platforms during the course of 2022 and 2023. Nacir was sentenced at Kingston Crown Court on Tuesday, 24 September, to six years and nine months’ imprisonment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Man from South West London jailed for sharing terrorist content online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A 21-year-old man has been jailed for posting and sharing terrorist content online, as a result of a proactive Met Police Counter Terrorism investigation. An investigation led by the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command exposed how Ayoub Nacir, 21 (26.07.2003) of southwest London was posting terrorist material on various social media accounts and platforms during the…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sexual grooming is the process by which a person with a sexual interest in children builds an emotional connection with a child to gain their trust for the purposes of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation or trafficking.

Grooming can be committed by a male or female and a child can be groomed online or face to face, by a stranger or by someone they already know. Sexual grooming is often carefully planned and can take place over weeks, months or years, with the ultimate goal of meeting the child for committing a sexual offence.

Any communication with a child for the purpose of sexually abusing them is legally considered to be grooming and is a classified as an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 .

No child under the age of 13 can ever consent to sexual activity. This means that if a child under 13 is effectively groomed and a sexual act takes place as a result, this is automatically classified as rape and carries a maximum life sentence.

Section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003

Section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 specifies that it is an offence to arrange a meeting, or to facilitate a meeting, with a child under the age of 16 with the intent of sexually abusing the child or with the intent of another person sexually abusing them.

If you are found guilty of either offence in the magistrates' court you face a term of up to six months' imprisonment and/or a fine. If you are convicted in the crown court , the maximum prison sentence is 14 years.

Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003

Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 specifies that it is a criminal offence to meet a child following the process of grooming.

This offence is committed when a person over the age of 18 has met or communicated with someone on more than one occasion and intentionally meets them, arranges to meet them in any part of the world or travels with the intention of meeting them in any part of the world.

The offence is committed if the victim is under 16 or if the offender does not reasonably believe that the victim is 16 or over. If you are found guilty in the magistrates' court you face up to six months in prison and/or a fine. If you are convicted in the crown court, the maximum prison sentence is 10 years.

Sexual grooming via communication

In April 2017, sexual communication with a child was made an offence. Groomers who target children through the use of a mobile phone, social media, emails or letters to communicate with them sexually or with the intention of eliciting a sexual response can receive a maximum sentence of two years in prison and face being placed on the sex offenders' register.

The sex offenders' register

Anyone convicted of a sexual grooming offence is added to the sex offenders' register and is required to notify the police of certain details, either for a certain amount of time or for life. A failure to comply with the terms of the register is a serious criminal offence for which the individual will be prosecuted, with the risk of receiving a prison sentence.

What to do if you are accused of sexual grooming in the UK

If you are accused of sexual grooming it is crucial that you are represented by a specialist solicitor who is an expert in this complex and serious area of law. The consequences of being charged with sexual grooming are life changing, with a term of imprisonment highly likely. You also face the prospect of addition to the sex offenders' register and risk receiving a sexual harm prevention order (SHPO).

It is vital that your future is not left in the hands of a general criminal defence lawyer who may not have the expertise or experience in dealing with these matters. At , we have the experience and expertise required to deal with cases of sexual grooming . We will work with you to ensure that you get the best outcome possible in your individual case.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sexual grooming: what is it? | Lawtons Criminal Defence Solicitors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you are accused of sexual grooming, then is is essential that you seek expert legal advice to represent you immediately. An incredibly serious form of criminal offence, sexual grooming takes many forms which this article describes. Contact us at once for more help defending yourself against such serious charges.

# data[].attributes.headline
You should be wary if someone you've met online

# data[].attributes.subject
You should be wary if someone you've met online

# data[].attributes.body
• is trying to start a relationship with you very quickly (they may even send you a sexual image first)

• has sent friend requests to lots of people, not just you

• repeatedly asks you to do sexual things that you’re not comfortable with

• tells you they’ve hacked your account or have access to your contacts

Sextortion attempts can happen very quickly, or they can happen over a long time.

You should never share sexual images or information about yourself if you are not comfortable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Government cracks down on ‘deepfakes’ creation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despicable people who create sexually explicit ‘deepfakes’ will face prosecution under a new law announced by the government today (16 April 2024).

# data[].attributes.body
The Online Safety Act is designed to protect individuals from harmful, violent, or hateful content online, particularly when they are targeted or affected as viewers. If you encounter such content, the Act places a responsibility on technology companies to take measures to ensure your safety. This includes promptly removing harmful posts, blocking offending accounts, and reporting illegal material to the appropriate authorities.

The Act acknowledges that exposure to violent, harmful, or hateful material can have tangible consequences, affecting mental health, emotional well-being, and overall sense of security. As such, it mandates that platforms develop accessible reporting mechanisms for harmful content and enhance tools that allow you to control your online experience. For example, platforms may provide options to filter specific types of content or disable comments on sensitive posts.

Ultimately, the Act aims to ensure that you feel safer while navigating the online environment. Its goal is to foster a digital space where individuals can interact without the fear of harassment, exposure to dangerous content, or emotional harm.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Counter-terrorism laws are to be updated to keep pace with modern online behaviour and to address the issue of online radicalisation, Home Secretary Amber Rudd has announced today.

The government intends to change the law, so that people who repeatedly view terrorist content online could face up to 15 years behind bars. The proposed changes will strengthen the existing offence of possessing information likely to be useful to a terrorist (Section 58 Terrorism Act 2000) so that it applies to material that is viewed repeatedly or streamed online. Currently the power only applies to online material which has been downloaded and stored on the offender's computer, is saved on a separate device or printed off as a hard copy.

The move to tighten the law around the viewing of terrorist material comes as part of a wide-ranging review of the government's counter terrorism strategy, following this year's terror attacks, and will help provide an important and effective way of intervening earlier in an investigation and disrupting terrorist activity.

The legal changes will also increase the maximum penalty from 10 to 15 years to reflect the seriousness of the offence and ensure perpetrators are locked up for longer.

The new maximum penalty of 15 years will also apply to terrorists who publish information about members of the armed forces, police and intelligence services for the purposes of preparing acts of terrorism (Section 58a of the Terrorism Act 2000). There have been a number of prosecutions for terrorism offences which have featured armed forces personnel (or military establishments) as targets for attacks, including the successful conviction of Junead Khan last year for planning to attack personnel at a USAF airbase in Norfolk, and of those responsible for the horrific murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby.

The updated offence will ensure that only those found to repeatedly view online terrorist material will be captured by the offence, to safeguard those who click on a link by mistake or who could argue that they did so out of curiosity rather than with criminal intent. A defence of 'reasonable excuse' would still be available to academics, journalists or others who may have a legitimate reason to view such material.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Law tightened to target terrorists' use of the internet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Counter-terrorism laws are to be updated to keep pace with modern online behaviour and to address the issue of online radicalisation, Home Secretary Amber Rudd has announced today. The government intends to change the law, so that people who repeatedly view terrorist content online could face up to 15 years behind bars.

# data[].attributes.body
3 case stories and their outcomes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tackling violence against women & girls - 3 anonymised stories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tackling violence against women & girls - 3 Crimestoppers anonymised stories.

# data[].attributes.body
Found from gov website for if you have concerns about terror related activity as a victim.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the UK, it is illegal for anyone to produce, possess or distribute illegal pornography or indecent images. However, there is understandably some confusion as to whether 'viewing' this type of content is the same as 'possessing' it.

The sentences associated with illegal pornography and indecent images have the potential to be serious, so understanding what content is considered to be illegal and what constitutes possession.

Here, we discuss what is illegal to view on the internet in the UK, whether viewing is the same as possessing and what the potential consequences of being involved in illegal pornography may be.

What is considered to be illegal pornography?

As a general rule, it is not illegal to view, possess, share, or sell adult pornography in the UK. However, there are certain types of pornography which are considered illegal.

Firstly, it is illegal to possess 'extreme pornography'. Extreme pornography refers to material that is considered grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise obscene. It will explicitly and realistically show:

Life threatening injury

Act resulting, or is likely to result, in serious injury to someone's anus, breasts or genitals

Bestiality (Intercourse or oral sex with an animal)

Necrophilia (Sexual interference with a human corpse)

Rape or assault by penetration

A reasonable person looking at the image must think that the persons or animals were real.

Is scat porn illegal in the UK?

Scat pornography (a form of pornography that involves defecation) falls under the wider umbrella of extreme pornography and is therefore considered to be illegal.

What is an indecent image?

It is also an offence to take, to permit to be taken, to make, to possess, show, or to distribute or publish an image of a child (someone under the age of 18) posed or pictured indecently. Images refer to actual photographs or video footage, drawings, tracings or digital images.

It is important to note that there is no statutory definition of 'indecent'. However, in a case before a jury, it is for them to decide what is indecent by referring to whether it is something that offends recognised standards of propriety.

How are indecent images categorised?

There are three levels of seriousness for indecent images:

Category A indecent images

Category A indecent images are the most serious category. They relate to images involving penetrative sexual activity and sexual activity with an animal or sadism. Offences related to Class A indecent images are very likely to lead to prison sentences.

Category B indecent images

Category B indecent images involve non-penetrative sexual activity. This may include masturbation, typically without the presence of an adult. Class B indecent image offences are likely to result in a prison sentence or community service order.

Category C indecent images

Category C indecent images depict erotic or sexual posing and are considered the least serious. Offences here are likely to result in a community order but can be extended to a prison sentence.

What counts as possession of illegal pornography or indecent images?

Possessing illegal pornography or indecent images refers to the act of storing pictures or photographs in your property, on your person, or on any electronic devices you own, meaning you have a degree of control over them.

Is viewing the same as possessing in the UK?

So, where is the line drawn between viewing and possessing illegal pornography and indecent images? This is a complicated issue that doesn't necessarily have a single concrete answer.

Distinguishing between viewing and possessing is typically context dependent. The act of viewing an image or video can be done in many ways, which could affect whether the offence of possession is taken into consideration. In law viewing is defined as 'making'.

For example, situations where someone has to download an image to their device compared to viewing an image through search results, will be treated very differently.

The charge of 'making' also has the advantage of being widely interpreted to cover such activities as opening attachments to emails and downloading or simply viewing images on the internet. By contrast, the same conduct often cannot lead to a possession charge.

The case of R v Okoro (No.3) has given clarity on the law of possession, in which they used the following test:

The suspect must have custody or control of the images, basically, they are able to access or retrieve the images;

The suspect knows that they possessed an image or collection of images on their device. It's not necessary to know the content of the images, just that they know they have them.

Can you go to jail for looking at a website in the UK?

It is possible that you can receive a prison sentence for viewing certain websites, especially if the website contains illegal pornography or indecent images. This also applies if you are found to have accessed an illegal website on the dark web.

What are the sentencing guidelines for possessing illegal pornography and indecent images?

The sentencing guidelines related to illegal pornography and indecent images are broad and incorporate a wide range of factors.

With regards to illegal or extreme pornography, the maximum sentence for possession varies depending on the subject matter. The maximum sentence for possession of images that depict life threatening acts or serious injury is three years imprisonment. The maximum sentence for possession of images involving bestiality and necrophilia is two years imprisonment. An unlimited fine can also be handed out.

The range of penalties someone can receive for possessing indecent images depends on the Category. The minimum sentence for possessing indecent images will involve Category C images and could lead to a medium level community order. On the other hand, cases involving possession of Category A indecent images can lead to three years' custody.

Are there any aggravating or mitigating factors for illegal pornography and indecent image offences?

The sentence someone receives for illegal pornography, or indecent image offence may also depend on whether there are any aggravating or mitigating factors.

Aggravating factors which could increase the severity of punishment may include:

Previous convictions

An offence taking place while on bail

The age and vulnerability of a child depicted (for indecent images)

Visible pain and suffering

Distress caused

The period the images were possessed

The volume of images possessed

Whether commercial gain was intended

Whether widespread distribution was intended

Mitigating factors could include:

No prior convictions

Clear remorse

A defendant previously showing good character

Age or a lack of maturity

Mental disorders or disability

Steps taken to address offending (such as self-referral to counselling)

Dealing with a porn addiction through professional help

Dealing with drink or drug issues

Proving personal mitigation factors such as bereavement or trauma

Medical reports

Personal consequences because of the offence, such as loss of job or marriage

Should I speak to a solicitor if I'm accused of possessing illegal pornography or indecent images?

In short, yes, you should speak to a solicitor as soon as possible. The sentencing guidelines for illegal pornography and indecent images are harsh, which means that the support and advice of an expert solicitor is critical. If you have been arrested and interviewed by the police, our criminal defence solicitors can step in to lend their expertise and representation.

Some people make the incorrect assumption that instructing a solicitor after being accused of an offence will demonstrate that they must be guilty. This is not accurate, and, no matter what your circumstances may be, it is crucial that you enlist representation as soon as possible.

At JD Spicer Zeb, our sexual offence solicitors have substantial experience and expertise with these types of matters and are ready to lend their support. We will take every possible step to ensure that your rights are protected and that you achieve the best possible outcome.

In the case of indecent images, we will make sure that the alleged images are correctly and accurately categorised, medical reports (including phycological evaluations) are collated and that the potential impact on you and your family is well accounted for. This could make all the difference if a case proceeds to sentencing.

Our team also work with a leading digital forensics provider Cyfor who can offer fast face to face expert advice on the initial forensic aspect of the police investigation. This can cost around £500 plus VAT. The expert can advise in-depth on lines of forensics the police will deploy and the likely outcome of interrogation of various platforms or devices.

Where a conviction is unavoidable, we will also work to ensure that any sentence is proportionate, including the application of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO).

Contact our Sexual offence lawyers today

For a free initial consultation, urgent specialist advice, immediate representation, or to speak to us confidentially about allegations of illegal pornography or possessing indecent images, please do not hesitate to get in touch.

You can contact our dedicated sexual offence and indecent images defence lawyers in London, Birmingham, and Manchester by telephone on:

Or email: solicitors@jdspicer.co.uk

Alternatively, you can fill out our quick online enquiry form, and we will get back to you as soon as possible.

24/7 legal representation for illegal pornography and indecent images offence allegations

Please get in touch for a free initial consultation with one of our expert criminal defence solicitors, as well as immediate representation and advice on dealing with allegations relating to illegal pornography and indecent images.

We are available to represent clients all over England and Wales at any time, so please contact our Emergency Number 07836 577 556.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Viewing Illegal Pornography The Same as Possessing It?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the UK, it is illegal for anyone to produce, possess or distribute illegal pornography or indecent images. However, there is understandably some confusion as…

# data[].attributes.body
Anybody can be a groomer, no matter their age, gender, or race. Grooming can take place over a short or long period of time – from weeks to years. Groomers may also build a relationship with the person's family or friends to make them seem trustworthy or authoritative.

by a stranger or someone they know. This could be a family member, a friend or someone who has targeted them – like a teacher or lecturer, faith group leader or sports coach. When a person is groomed online, groomers may hide who they are by sending photos or videos of other people. Sometimes this will be of someone younger than them to gain the trust of a "peer".
People can be groomed online through social media networks, text messages and messaging apps, like Whatsapp, email, text, voice and video chats in forums, games and apps.

Whether online or in person, groomers can use tactics like pretending to be younger, giving advice, or showing understanding, buying gifts, giving attention, taking them on trips, outings, or holidays.

Groomers might also try and isolate people from their friends and family; making them feel dependent on them and giving the groomer power and control over them. They might use blackmail to make a person feel guilt and shame.

People who have been groomed may not understand or recognise that they have been groomed. They may have complicated feelings, like loyalty, admiration, love; as well as fear, distress and con

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is grooming and radicalisation? - Report + Support - Brunel University London

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Grooming occurs when someone builds a relationship of trust and an emotional connection with another person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them. People who are groomed can be sexually abused, exploited, or trafficked.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An Act to make provision for securing computer material against unauthorised access or modification; and for connected purposes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This simple guide has been written to help SMEs understand the difference between situations where you can share personal data and situations where it's unlawful.

There are various reasons why you may need to share information about people with others - and you can, as long as you've got a good reason to and you do it responsibly.

Sharing data can make life easier and more convenient. Some agencies share information about their customers to keep them safe. Some businesses share data to give their users better services. As long as organisations understand how to share data lawfully, fairly and transparently and take all the necessary steps to keep it safe, they can share data with each another.

It's important to understand when it's ok to share personal data and when it's unlawful. This simple guide will help you work that out.

It's OK to share data when...

...it makes life easier, more efficient or more comfortable.

For example:

Joined-up care records enable health and social care providers to share information about their patients' needs, which means they can make better decisions about each person's care.

It's helpful for banks and lenders to share credit information with credit reference agencies and for credit reference agencies to share with them. This makes checking credit history easier and speeds up the process for people applying for credit.

An external HR provider could receive employee sickness records so they can support with staff administration.

...you have evidence of criminal activity.

For example:

A shopkeeper can share CCTV footage with the police if there's a court order or if it's relevant to a police investigation - and in this situation, the shopkeeper wouldn't need to inform the suspect.

Sharing this type of information is justified, despite the potential impact on the person who it's about, because of the need to protect us all from criminal activity.

...you need to protect vulnerable people.

For example:

You can share data in a safeguarding situation, such as to prevent child sexual exploitation and abuse online, or for the purposes of preventing or detecting crimes against children such as online grooming.

...someone's life is in danger.

For example:

A pharmacist might need to tell a hospital about medication that they gave to a patient receiving urgent or emergency treatment.

You can share data about someone in an emergency if it will save their life or protect them or others from serious harm.

It's unlawful to share data when...

...you don't have a lawful basis.

This rule applies to all of the examples in this list. If you haven't got a good reason (or a ' lawful basis') to share someone's data, then you shouldn't be sharing it. You can use our lawful basis checker to help you work this out.

For example:

Wendy is a supermarket director and she collects and stores information about her customers' shopping habits through her supermarket's loyalty card scheme. From this information, Wendy's supermarket can see that Vernon buys cat food every week. It's likely that Vernon has a cat, but Wendy wouldn't have a good reason (a 'lawful basis') to share Vernon's information with a local vet, who wants to market cat owners with his services. It's also a bad idea because Vernon wouldn't expect that to happen. He neither agreed to this nor knows about it and it wouldn't be fair to him.

...you haven't got appropriate security measures in place for sharing and storage.

You have to keep people's personal data safe and destroy it securely when it's no longer needed. If you're holding and sharing data, you must assess the risks and put appropriate security measures in place. These could include measures such as strong passwords and only allowing a limited number of people to access different areas of your systems.

...the information is particularly 'sensitive' and you haven't taken this into consideration.

For example, sharing certain information like someone's sexual preference, ethnicity, medical condition or political views could lead to discrimination.

So you not only need to have a lawful basis, but you also need to take extra steps to keep sensitive data safe. But if you haven't got a lawful basis then you shouldn't share it, no matter what extra steps you take or measures you put in place.

...it's part of a general or unlimited sharing arrangement.

For example, social care organisations can only share data with one another when they have taken all the necessary steps to keep it safe. In particular, they need to understand how to share data lawfully, fairly and transparently. If organisations share data regularly, it's good practice to have a data sharing agreement. The data sharing must be reasonable and proportionate and people should know what's happening to their information. A general or unlimited sharing arrangement is unlikely to be either lawful or fair, because a blanket approach can't take every situation into account.

...you haven't been transparent with people.

For example:

A catalogue company that sells extreme sports accessories wants to sell their customer list to a travel agent who offers adventure holidays. The catalogue company didn't make their customers aware that they'd share their information with others and so this would be unlawful. Even if they had customers' consent for marketing, this doesn't include third party companies unless specifically stated.

...it's not required.

For example:

An online retailer uses a delivery company to send out a product to one of their customers. As well as providing the name and address of the customer, the retailer also shares the customer's payment details with the delivery company, because on their system it's easier to share a full customer record than take extracts. The delivery company doesn't need this information to do their job, so by doing this the online retailer is acting unlawfully.

...you're sharing children's data without a compelling reason.

Sharing data about anyone without a lawful basis is unlawful, but there are specific regulations to protect children online and their data needs greater protection. For example, it's unlawful to sell on children's personal data for commercial re-use. We've written specific guidance on how to handle children's data here. Essentially, you mustn't share data about children unless you've got a compelling reason to do so, taking account of the best interests of the child.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This simple guide has been written to help SMEs understand the difference between situations where you can share personal data and situations where it’s unlawful.

# data[].attributes.body
What happens if we fail to notify the ICO of all notifiable breaches?

Failing to notify the ICO Information Commissioner's Office of a breach when required to do so can result in a heavy fine of up to £8.7 million or 2 per cent of your global turnover. The fine can be combined with the ICO’s other corrective powers under Article 58. It is important to make sure you have a robust breach-reporting process in place to ensure you detect, and notify breaches, on time and to provide the necessary details, unless the personal data breach is unlikely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of data subjects. If you decide you don’t need to report the breach, you need to be able to justify this decision, so you should document it.

# data[].attributes.body
Consequences for the viewer of violent, harmful, or hateful material

Risk of incite and radicalization

Horrific consequences, including mass murder

Targeting minorities and protected groups

Consequences for the person who created the content

Risk of legal action for incitement and harassment

Spread of terrorist content

Abuse and bullying

Undermining civil discourse

# data[].attributes.body
British Airways £20m

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's been three years since the introduction of Europe's data privacy and security law on 25 May 2018.

GDPR governs the way organisations that operate within the EU can use, process and store consumers' personal data.

At first smaller firms and start-ups feared they did not have adequate resources to fully comply with its rules.

Other critics suggested the legislation relied too much on consumers knowing and understanding their rights.

Since its launch, hundreds of millions of euros worth of fines have been handed out by information commissioners around Europe.

Offences have included retailers misrepresenting the way they use CCTV cameras to monitor employees, and companies not complying with the "right to be forgotten" law.

The legislation replaced older data protection laws, and while it was drafted in Europe, regulators can fine organisations anywhere in the world which target or collect data in the EU.

There are two tiers of penalties, with a maximum of 20m euros (£17.29m) or 4% of global revenue.

The money collected is used to fund public services. Here are the biggest fines recorded so far:

1. Google (€50m/£43.2m)

It was fined after a French regulator ruled that the company had failed to make its consumer data processing statements easily accessible to its users.

The tech giant was also found guilty of not seeking the consent of its users to harness their data for targeted advertising campaigns.

Google appealed, but France's higher court upheld the fine in June last year.

2. H&M (€35.3m/£32.1m)

If workers took holiday or sick leave, they were required to attend a meeting with senior staff at the retail giant on their return.

These meetings were recorded, and made accessible to H&M managers without the knowledge of staff.

The data collected from the interviews was used to make a "detailed profile" of workers, which then influenced decisions concerning their employment.

3. Tim - Telecom Italia (€27.8m/£24m)

In early 2020, the Italian data protection authorities issued a mammoth €27.8m fine to telecoms firm Tim, formerly known as Telecom Italia.

It said customers were getting nuisance calls without having given their consent - even if they had registered their telephone numbers on Italy's "do not call" list or explicitly told callers they were revoking consent for such calls. One person was reportedly called 155 times in a single month.

The violations were several and serious, the regulator found, issuing the large fine and 20 "corrective measures" for the firm.

4. British Airways (£20m)

Through the data breach, hackers were able to harvest the personal data of about 400,000 people.

The leaked data included login and travel booking details, names, addresses and credit card information.

But more than a year later, it dramatically lowered the fine, saying "the economic impact of Covid-19" had been taken into account.

It was still the highest fine issued by the ICO, which found that the hack was the result of British Airways' negligence.

BA said it had let customers know as soon as it became aware of the problem, had fully co-operated with the investigation, and that it had "made considerable improvements to the security of our systems since the attack".

The hack exposed the personal details of about 300 million customers including credit card information, passport numbers and dates of birth. Seven million of those guest records related to people in the UK.

Similar to the British Airways fine, the ICO initially said it planned to issue a much higher fine of £99m - but lowered the amount later.

Where does GDPR money go?

In the UK, all penalties handed out by the ICO are paid into a central government fund which belongs to the Treasury.

The Consolidated Fund is the government's general bank account at the Bank of England.

It was established in 1787 with the purpose of being "one fund into which shall flow every stream of public revenue and from which shall come the supply of every service".

This means that just like tax revenue, GDPR fines are used to fund public services.

The majority of other countries in the EU use a similar structure.

Rob Elliss, from tech company Thales, says that despite success so far in handing out substantial fines, GDPR will face more challenges in a post-Covid world.

"When GDPR was first drafted, the legislation did not necessarily account for the adoption of new technologies and rapid migration to the cloud brought on by the pandemic," he said.

"In this remote working era, businesses needed to digitally transform almost overnight just to keep the lights on, without necessarily incorporating security in the design of new systems and processes."

Correction 25 May 2021: An earlier version of this story contained some inaccuracies including out-of-date information about the fines imposed on British Airways and Marriott International Hotels and listing Amazon among the top five companies fined. However Amazon was not fined in connection with GDPR, but under France's separate e-privacy directive and so we have updated these figures and replaced Amazon in the list with Tim .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Three years of GDPR: the biggest fines so far

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Google received the largest fine issued so far under European data protection laws.

# data[].attributes.body
Is it illegal to give out someone's personal information UK?

Sharing data about anyone without a lawful basis is unlawful, but there are specific regulations to protect children online and their data needs greater protection. For example, it's unlawful to sell on children's personal data for commercial re-use.

# data[].attributes.body
The impact can vary depending on factors such as age and maturity. Victims may feel scared, confused, upset, or compelled to share the content. Legislation aims to prevent various abusive activities online, including stalking, harassment, and child sexual abuse.

# data[].attributes.body
Under Section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 it is a similar offence to send a telephone message which is indecent offensive or threatening. Such offence is punishable with up to six months imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £5000.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Identity theft is the act of stealing someone's personal and financial information. They might find this information online, steal physical documents such as a driving licence or passport, or even go through someone's rubbish to find personal details on bills, bank statements, invoices and receipts.

Once obtained, a fraudster might go on to commit identity fraud - opening accounts in the victim's name, taking control of their bank account or applying for credit they have no intention of repaying.

If you suspect someone has got hold of information about you which they're using to pose as you, act quickly to protect your identity and ensure you're not liable for any financial losses.

Here's what to do

Contact your bank

Ask them to withhold pending transactions and ask about their claims process if any money has been taken fraudulently.

Change your passwords and PINs

This should include bank accounts, email addresses and social media accounts.

Register with Cifas

Cifas is the UK's fraud prevention community. For £25 you can have Protective Registration for 2 years which tells any Cifas organisation (which includes most banks, credit providers and telecommunication companies) to carry out extra checks whenever your name or details are used to apply for their services.

Lost or stolen documents?

Report them to the organisation that issued them, such as the Passport Office, Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) or bank. You should also report the theft of documents to the police and ask for a crime reference number.

Unusual transactions on your bank statement?

Tell your bank, building society and credit card company immediately.

Check your credit report

This will show you if anyone has been trying to make credit applications using your identity. The three main credit reference agencies in the UK are:

A credit check is free and it won't affect your credit score, so it may be worth checking with all three.

Suspicious credit applications?

Report any mismatches to the credit reference agencies, who will alert the relevant lender. The lender will investigate and approve the request to have the credit application removed from your credit report. This can take several weeks, so the sooner you report it, the sooner your records will be updated.

Credit taken out in your name?

Tell the bank or lender immediately. You should also report any fraudulent activity to the police and ask for a crime reference number.

Worried your credit score is at risk?

Consider setting up an extra layer of security on your credit report, which makes it harder for fraudsters to pretend to be you. Here are 2 options.

1. A fraud alert on your credit report

This means lenders must run extra identity checks before offering credit in your name. There is a cost for this service through the credit reference agencies.

2. A Notice of Correction password

This can be added to your credit report for free. Make sure you choose something nobody could guess. If anyone applies for credit in your name - including you - the lender must ask for this password before they lend the money.

Identity theft victim's checklist

For further advice on what to do if you've been affected by identity theft, check out this handy checklist on the Action Fraud website.

How else can we help?

Find out how to report fraud and help the police crack down on the criminals behind it.

Find out how to get support to deal with the practical and emotional impact of fraud.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What to do if your identity has been stolen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Think your identity's stolen? Ready to take quick action to protect yourself and prevent financial losses? Want to know how?

# data[].attributes.body
Perpetrator could also be liable to pay compensation to the victim.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/

# data[].attributes.body
There are many fines and penalties for online misconduct, there can be serious penalties such as prison. Especially when it involves child exploitation and fraud.

# data[].attributes.body
It is an offence to view or otherwise access terrorist material online without a reasonable excuse; it will be a reasonable excuse if the person does not know, or has no reason to believe, that the material is likely to be useful to a person preparing or committing an act of terrorism, or for a person to access such material for the purposes of carrying out work as a journalist or academic research.

# data[].attributes.body
The prison sentence amount for inappropriate or illegal online activity varies depending on the specific circumstances and the country. In the UK, the maximum sentence is 5 years in prison

# data[].attributes.body
Once a criminal had access to your personal details they can commit a number of scams.

They can duplicate your cards , use your bank account number to make withdrawals. open fraudlent loans or lines of credit under your name. Damage your credit score.

in 2023 , 1.9 million british consumers (4.3%) acknowledged that their identity was stolen and misused to open finacial accounts.

# data[].attributes.body
The Perpetrator tries to draw a person into terrorism and exposes them with radical or extreme views

The Victim is forced and persuaded to do extreme things in the severe case may lead to mass murder and targeting minority group.

The recent study as revealed that four out of five people groomed online are girls in the age group 12-15

Government has announced a minimum of 14 to a maximum of 25 years in prison for the offenders.

# data[].attributes.body
online harassment and bulling.

inappropriate photos can be used as a weapon for cyberbulling or harrasment.

they might be shared publicly to embarrasse and damage your reputation. this can lead to lasting emotional and psychological effects. Which could leat to serious mental health issues.

# data[].attributes.body
When do we need to tell individuals about a breach?

If a breach is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals, the UK GDPR says you must inform those concerned directly and without undue delay. In other words, this should take place as soon as possible.

# data[].attributes.body
Watching violent Pornography can give a warped sense of reality and can create abusing partners or rapists.

# data[].attributes.body
Online harms can be illegal, or they can be harmful but legal. Examples of online harms include (but are not restricted to):

child sexual exploitation and abuse

terrorist use of the internet

hate crime and hate speech

harassment, cyberbullying and online abuse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
People who watch or stream extremist material repeatedly could face up to 15 years in prison.

# data[].attributes.body
.29B - use of words or behaviour / display of written material intended to stir up religious hatred

Crown Court
- 7 years imprisonment
Magistrates' court
- 6 months

s.29C - publishing or distributing written material intended to stir up religious hatred

Crown Court
- 7 years imprisonment
Magistrates' court
- 6 months

s.29D - public performance of a play intended to stir up religious hatred

Crown Court
- 7 years imprisonment
Magistrates' court
- 6 months

s.29E - distributing/ showing/playing a recording intended to stir up religious hatred

Crown Court
- 7 years imprisonment
Magistrates' court
- 6 months

s.29F - broadcasting/including a programme in a programme service intended to stir up religious hatred

Crown Court
- 7 years imprisonment
Magistrates' court
- 6 months

s.29G - possession of inflammatory material intended to stir up religious hatred

Crown Court
- 7 years imprisonment
Magistrates' court
- 6 months

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Joshua Schulte: Former CIA hacker sentenced to 40 years in prison

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Joshua Schulte, 35, was convicted in 2022 for the largest data breach in the history of the CIA.

# data[].attributes.body
for businesses- 60% of small to medium-sized businesses will end up closing within 6 months of the data breach, they face reputational damage, loss of sales, loss of budget control, legal penalties (for failure to protect customer/ employees data) and also loss of employees and potential employees.

# data[].attributes.body
Receiving up to 25 years in jail

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For 15 years the Rochdale grooming scandal has cast a long shadow - not only over the town but also the agencies which failed to protect so many of its most vulnerable people. Girls as young as 13 who were horrifically abused were branded "child prostitutes" - judged, blamed and disbelieved. Sometimes they were even arrested themselves.

In the wake of shocking failures exposed in a string of damning inquiries, a specialist multi-agency unit called the Sunrise Team was set up, with the mantra Never Again.

"I don't think any police officer - be it at my level or on the streets - wants that to ever happen again," said Det Ch Insp Stuart Round, head of vulnerability and safeguarding for Greater Manchester Police (GMP) in Rochdale.

"I think we've massively changed," he told BBC North West. "I think the culture's changed, I think society is much more aware of [child sexual exploitation] because of these high-profile cases.

"People are much more willing to report these matters to us and we're much more aware of recognising victims.

"With a child dealing drugs or in possession of a firearm for example, rather than immediately thinking they're a perpetrator and arresting them and sending them to jail we need to be thinking: 'Are they a victim?'

"We need to think beyond the obvious and that's what we're getting much better at."

But Maggie Oliver, a former GMP detective who resigned in 2012 over the poor handling of the Rochdale abuse cases and went on to establish a foundation to support victims, said: "I am telling you that the failures I saw in Rochdale back in 2011 and 2012 are still happening today.

"Lack of victim care, lack of adequate resourcing, lack of prioritising these kinds of very complex cases. We are going to be in the same position, exactly, in another 10 years with different victims unless the leadership get a grip of the system that is not working.

"Things haven't changed. In far too many ways victims are still being failed in Rochdale and in many other areas."

Ms Oliver told the BBC that, in the past four months, her foundation had been approached by young children whose families said were being exploited in Rochdale but had not been able to get the police to take action.

She warned the "woefully inadequate" response meant abusers were "still confident that the chances of them being arrested, prosecuted [and] convicted are so tiny that it's worth taking the chance".

When asked if she felt young victims still had no-one to turn to and were still not being believed, Ms Oliver replied: "I don't feel that - I know that. I see it every day.

"There is still an attitude somehow that these children are 'asking for it'. And that is still very widespread."

GMP said it met the Maggie Oliver Foundation monthly and senior officers were able to ensure urgent action was taken before providing updates at the next meeting.

Det Ch Insp Round said he was "absolutely confident" children or families who came to his team for help would be believed and supported.

"We're raising that awareness to be professionally curious when dealing with missing children," he told the BBC. "Is there something going on behind the scenes that we're not aware of?

"When we have had reports of victims or potential victims, we've moved rapidly to arrest perpetrators and gather evidence.

"That sends a clear message not only to victims, not only to perpetrators but to our partners that if you report things to us we will deal with it and we will deal with it robustly.

"We can't not acknowledge what happened in the past but that's not what I experience today."

'Raising awareness'

Agencies historically failed to work together effectively and did not share information about children at risk of exploitation.

Now the multi-disciplinary Sunrise Team - including detectives, children's services, NHS staff, housing workers and psychologists - sits together at Rochdale police station.

Members go out together on operations - a model that has won national awards and is being copied elsewhere.

Det Ch Insp Round said that while the team acted quickly on information it received, it had to do more.

"We look at what each agency knows about that child, have we already worked with them? Do we know the parents? We share information. It's massively different.

"But for me that's not enough. We need to be going out into the community, raising awareness about what we do and targeting people who we think will exploit children."

Since June, the team has been visiting hotels to raise awareness among staff of the signs of child sexual exploitation.

Under Operation Cobalt, undercover officers and children have been used to try to book hotel rooms.

"We're being proactive because although we don't think it's a massive issue in Rochdale we know it probably goes on in hotels," said Det Con Chris Davies.

"We want to stop it happening before it happens. We're speaking to staff, educating them... handing out leaflets so they can show they can spot the signs of exploitation."

More than a decade ago, ringleaders of the Rochdale grooming gang operated from takeaways in the town, often plying their victims with alcohol.

Now, GMP says some e-cigarette shops have become honeypots for vulnerable children with vapes "a big tool for sexual and criminal exploitation".

Shopkeepers are asking young girls for sexual favours in return for vapes, while drug dealers have given them to boys to sell as a test to see whether they can be manipulated into selling drugs.

In December, under Operation Vigilant, the team joined forces with trading standards officers and seized nearly 2,000 illegal, super-strength vapes to stop them getting into the hands of children.

"We have a number of proactive operations that aren't one-offs, they aren't gimmicks," said Det Ch Insp Round. "We do them once a month and they're really innovative as well."

The Sunrise Team is keen to talk about its successes, and its boss Det Ch Insp Round said he had a personal goal: "What I want to able to do in 15 or 20 years when I retire is say that we did everything that we possibly could to make sure there isn't child exploitation."

But he and his team have much still to do to convince the likes of Ms Oliver.

"There needs to be honesty about what is wrong and if we don't get that honesty there is no scrutiny of where the mistakes and failures are and we will not improve and get it right," she said.

"It very much is doable but by pretending that things are now better when in fact they are not you are doing a disservice to the victims and you are allowing abusers to continue to abuse knowing that there is very little chance they will be apprehended or prosecuted."

Why not follow BBC North West on Facebook, X and Instagram? You can also send story ideas to northwest.newsonline@bbc.co.uk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rochdale abuse scandal: Inside the team fighting child sexual exploitation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How are police and child protection experts trying to prevent a repeat of the Rochdale abuse scandal?

# data[].attributes.body
There are longer sentences for crimes related to terrorism and grooming The Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act (2021) has ended the prospect of early release for anyone convicted of a serious terror offence, forcing them to spend their whole term in prison

# data[].attributes.body
These include:

Cyberbullying

Racism

Misogynistic abuse

Pornography

Material promoting violence and self-harm.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Triable either way Maximum: 10 years’ custody Offence range: 1 – 7 years’ custody

# data[].attributes.body
Consequences for a victim could be:

Damage to your credit score

Your reputation could be harmed

You could suffer psychological destress

You have loss of control

Consequences for a perpetrator could be:

Fine up to £500,000

Could get prison sentence of up to 5 years for fraud.

# data[].attributes.body
women are more likely to experience online abuse. They are more likely to experience abuse from friends or acquaintances than men.

victims report feeling angry and anxious

victims of intimate image abuse reported experiencing the highest levels of harm

40% of cyber stalking victims say abuse lasted longer than 2 years.

Identity theft

financial loss

reputational damage

legal troubles

regulatory fines

erosion of consumer trust

targeted cyber attacks

profiling and surveillance

unwanted direct marketing or spam

The maximum sentence for identity theft fraud is a 10 years imprisonment.

Another consequence of stealing someones information could be loss of credit.

effect for the victims :_

it can negatively effect your credit, get you sued for debts that are not yours. result in incorrect and potentially life threatening information being added to your medical records and even get you arrested.

# data[].attributes.body
Terrorism and extremist behaviour

Young people are likely to get their news online. This does mean that they will see content being shared about distressing events like terror attacks, which can be very hard for them to make sense of.

Hearing about terrorist attacks or bombings can make children very anxious or scared. Sometimes this can include eyewitness videos which can be distressing for anyone to watch. This type of content can be shared very quickly online and may also leave young people with questions or fears about their own or others safety.

We know that the online world is being used to radicalise young people so you should talk to your child to help them question things that they are reading or being told online to enable them to not be influenced in this way.

It's important to talk to your child about what they are seeing online, particularly in the aftermath of events. Childline also has information for young people about dealing with news of terrorism, attacks and bombings.

# data[].attributes.body
Consequences can lead to Fines and prison sentences for illegal content.

It can also do Reputation damage to the victim or victims or any businesses.

Also legal actions can be made against the offender.

Can cause Harm to individuals or others who have been affected.

Compensation for victims

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An Act to make provision about terrorism; and to make temporary provision for Northern Ireland about the prosecution and punishment of certain offences, the preservation of peace and the maintenance of order.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Get information about distressing or violent online content, and how to support young people if they see it.

# data[].attributes.body
Victim:

Loss of trust: If they have been contacted from a fraudulant person and given their details over

# data[].attributes.body
Fines

The Information Commissioner has the power to issue fines for infringing on data protection law, including the failure to report a breach. The specific failure to notify can result in a fine of up to 10 million Euros or 2% of an organisation's global turnover, referred to as the ‘standard maximum’.

The most serious of data protection violations can result in a maximum fine of 20 million Euros (equivalent in sterling) or 4% of the total annual worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year, whichever is higher.

# data[].attributes.body
the victim will have a significant negative impact leading to anxiety and other mental health problem. (change in behaviour, withdrawn etc.)

The severity of the consequences depends on the nature and extent of the offense. For example sharing inappropriate content of audio videos or images online is a serious offence under the protection of children act 1978 and Consequence will be imprisonment. There are more rules that have been put in place to decrease all these happening.

# data[].attributes.body
Doorstep Dispensaree Ltd Fined £275,000

In late 2019, the Information Commissioner’s Office announced a fine levied against a London-based pharmacy. The penalty came as a result of the pharmacy’s failure to ensure the security of special category data, which was kept in unlocked containers at the back of its premises.

Around 500,000 documents containing medical information and other sensitive information were found unprotected not only from prying eyes but also from the elements, with many files discovered to be rain damaged.  This negligence resulted in the pharmacy being issued a £275,000 fine as well as being ordered to improve its data protection processes within three months or face further consequences.

# data[].attributes.body
Law enforcement agencies in the UK are currently arresting around 450 individuals and safeguarding over 600 children each month through their efforts to combat online CSE. In the UK alone, it is estimated there are 80,000 people who present a sexual threat to children online.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated: 5 November 2019
The government is committed to tackling Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (CSEA) in all its forms and to protect children from this terrible crime.

Scale of CSEA

Law enforcement agencies in the UK are currently arresting around 450 individuals and safeguarding over 600 children each month through their efforts to combat online CSE.

In the UK alone, it is estimated there are 80,000 people who present a sexual threat to children online.

Statistics from the National Crime Agency (NCA) show that last year 2.88 million accounts were registered globally across the most harmful child sexual abuse dark web sites, with at least 5% believed to be registered in the UK.

Strategy

The Home Office has announced the government will publish a national strategy to tackle all forms of Child Sexual Abuse, which will build on our ambition and action to tackle all child sexual abuse, online and offline.

Our strategy will require Government, law enforcement, safeguarding partners and industry to take a more joined up approach to tackling all forms of child abuse and support all victims and survivors.

Online Harms White Paper

In April the Home Office and DCMS jointly launched the Online Harms White Paper which sets out ways to keep children safe online.

Measures include a statutory duty of care on technology companies to ensure the safety of their users enforced by an independent regulator.

To fulfil the new duty of care, companies will have to take reasonable and proportionate action to tackle online harms on their services.

The regulator will set clear safety standards, backed up by mandatory reporting requirements and effective enforcement powers

The independent regulator will have wide-ranging powers to enforce the statutory duty of care.

The government has consulted on the extent of these powers and will respond in due course. Reflecting the threat to national security or the physical safety of children, the regulator will require companies to take particularly robust action to tackle terrorist or CSEA content. More stringent enforcement powers will be available to the regulator for CSEA or terrorist content.

Further information on the White Paper can be found at this separate factsheet.

Innovation

In November 2018 the Home Office convened a Hackathon in the US to work with tech firms to develop new tools to tackle online grooming.

The tool uses artificial intelligence to detect grooming behaviour and can flag potential grooming conversations to the platform.

The prototype tool will be licensed free of charge to technology companies to protect children on their platforms.

Last year the Home Office announced a £250,000 funding call for organisations to bid for funding to develop innovative solutions to disrupt live streaming of abuse.

In May, the Home Office announced a further £300,000 towards the development of the technology.

Among the concepts presented were a tool to identify and block livestreamed abuse by analysing viewers' comments and the development of a capability that can analyse video streams and automatically link content depicting the same individuals or locations.

The government announced upgrades to the Child Abuse Image Database (CAID) - the single database of indecent images of children, which supports the identification and safeguarding of victims of online child sexual abuse.

The upgrades include new tools to improve the capabilities of Police enabling them to rapidly analyse seized devices and identify victims.
Following the Chancellor's spending round in September, £30m additional funding was allocated to tackling child sexual abuse, particularly targeting the most dangerous and sophisticated offenders on the dark web and further upgrades to CAID.

Advertising

Preliminary research by the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) into 100 CSE sites found 1 in 10 contained adverts for legitimate brands, including some household names. In response to a subsequent commission, the advertising sector are now co-funding further research by the IWF into the scale and source of this issue.

The Home Office has twice convened a working group in December and most recently March. These meetings have been attended by leading advertising agencies and brands, and the Home Office has called on the sector to do more to prevent advertising revenue funding CSEA.

International

On December 11-12, the WePROTECT Global Alliance Summit will be held in partnership with the African Union at their headquarters in Addis Ababa. The UK has supported WePROTECT Global Alliance since its inception, and it is now the largest initiative dedicated to ending online child sexual exploitation, with 90 government members, 26 leading civil society organisations, 22 global technology companies and eight regional organisations.

In June, the Global Fund to End Violence Against Children, of which the Home Office is a member, gave £635,000 to the Marie Collins Foundation to help tackle CSEA at source internationally.

The Marie Collins Foundation has developed the Global Protection Online Network (GPON), a programme to help countries take steps to respond to the threat of online CSEA.

The Marie Collins Foundation will work in partnership with other NGOs in priority countries. Vietnam has been identified as the first country that will receive bespoke support through training for professionals in how best to help children who are sexually abused online.

The £635,000 has been provided by the Global Fund to End Violence Against Children (EVAC) - of which the Home Office is the major donor.

In July, the Home Secretary brought together counterparts from the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand at the Five Country Ministerial meeting in London to discuss how to tackle online child sexual abuse.

Ministers agreed at this meeting to commit to collaborate to design a set of voluntary principles that will ensure online platforms and services have the systems needed to stop the viewing and sharing of child sexual abuse material, the grooming of children online, and the livestreaming of child sexual abuse and the ability to report such offences to law enforcement.

Offenders

In March, the Home Office announced £600,000 funding for the Lucy Faithfull Foundation's Stop it Now! helpline.

The charity offers confidential advice to offenders who want to change their illegal behaviour.

The Stop It Now! deterrence campaign was launched in October 2015 to discourage people from viewing illegal sexual images of children online, and to offer help to those wanting to change their behaviour. It also supports the families and friends of offenders, and professionals.

Sentencing

As a result of work with the Crown Prosecution Service, those who think they are grooming a child for sex, but are actually communicating with an adult, will now face tougher charges. The charging guidance makes clear that they will be prosecuted for the same offence as those who groom real-life victims.

The government announced in September that violent offenders - including sexual offenders - would face tougher sentences. This was then included in the Queen's Speech in October.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fact Sheet on online Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated: 5 November 2019 The government is committed to tackling Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (CSEA) in all its forms and to protect children from this terrible crime. Scale of CSEA Law enforcement agencies in the UK are currently arresting ...

# data[].attributes.body
This can cause PTDS seeing awful things online can have a detrimental effect on someone's mental health.

# data[].attributes.body
Victims can experience extreme emotional distress, confusion and can warp their mental well being towards harmful, hateful materials.

Spreading violent harmful content could result in fines or imprisonment with a criminal record kept on file.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fraud and computer misuse offences have increased substantially over the last two years; while many other types of crime have decreased, affected by periods of national lockdown during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

Fraud offences increased by 25% (to 4.5 million offences) compared with the year ending March 2020, driven by large increases in "advance fee fraud" and "consumer and retail fraud".

The proportion of fraud incidents that were cyber-related increased to 61% from 53% in the year ending March 2020; this suggests that much of the increase in fraud offences was because of a rise in cyber-related fraud and may be related to behavioural changes during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and increased online activity.

Computer misuse increased by 89% (to 1.6 million offences) compared with the year ending March 2020, driven by a large increase in unauthorised access to personal information (hacking) offences.

There was a 17% increase in fraud reported to the police (to 936,276 offences) compared with the year ending March 2021 and a 25% increase compared with the year ending March 2020.

Action Fraud (the public-facing national fraud and cybercrime reporting centre) reported an 11% decrease in fraud offences (to 354,758 offences) compared with the year ending March 2021, when offences were at record levels (398,022 offences), but it is too early to say whether this indicates a change in trend.

Crime estimates for the year ending March 2022 best reflect the current extent of crime experienced by the population resident in households (Appendix table 1). However, telephone-based survey (TCSEW) estimates are not directly comparable with previous face-to-face survey (CSEW) estimates because of changes to the sample and questionnaire (see Section 9). Percentage changes are presented using figures adjusted for these differences.

Back to table of contents

The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) shows evidence of a fluctuating trend in fraud incidents over the short time period where data are available (since the year ending March 2017).

Estimates showed there were 4.5 million fraud offences in the Telephone-operated Crime Survey for England and Wales (TCSEW) year ending March 2022, a 25% increase compared with the CSEW year ending March 2020 (Figure 1; Appendix table 1).

Large increases were seen in "advance fee fraud" and "consumer and retail fraud". This may indicate fraudsters taking advantage of behavioural changes related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, such as increased online shopping (definitions of TCSEW fraud types are available in Section 8, Glossary).

Figure 1: The TCSEW showed a 25% increase in fraud for the year ending March 2022 compared with the year ending March 2020 CSEW

England and Wales, annual estimates

Source: Office for National Statistics - Crime Survey for England and Wales and Telephone-operated Crime Survey for England and Wales

Notes:

1. Data from the TCSEW are published as Experimental Statistics.

2. TCSEW data are not directly comparable with CSEW estimates. Estimates from the TCSEW for the year ending March 2022 are compared with the year ending March 2020 using comparable data and are not part of the main CSEW time series.

Download this chart

Fraud offences reported to the police are recorded and collected by the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB) from Action Fraud and two industry bodies, Cifas and UK Finance (See Section 9, Measuring the data). NFIB fraud increased by 17% (to 936,276 offences) in the year ending March 2022 compared with the year ending March 2021; this is also 25% higher compared with the year ending March 2020. Although total fraud offences referred to the NFIB increased, those referred by Action Fraud decreased.

Figure 2: There has been an upward trend in the number of fraud offences referred to the NFIB

England and Wales, year ending March 2014 to year ending March 2022

Source: National Fraud Intelligence Bureau

Notes:

NFIB data are not designated as National Statistics.

Download this chart

These trends need to be interpreted in the context of differences in coverage and fraud types captured by each reporting body as well as administrative changes (see Section 10, Strengths and limitations section). In the year ending March 2022:

Action Fraud (the public-facing national fraud and cybercrime reporting centre) reported an 11% decrease in fraud (to 354,758 offences) compared with the year ending March 2021, when offences were at record levels (398,022 offences); this fall was driven by a 19% decrease in consumer and retail fraud (to 125,560 offences) and may be related to changes in behaviour as restrictions to social contact were lifted

UK Finance reported a 151% increase in fraud (to 246,285 offences) compared with the year ending March 2021, which was a result of an increase in reporting from their existing members because of engagement from UK Finance, as well as reports coming in from new members who joined towards the end of 2021.

Crime estimates for the year ending March 2022 best reflect the current extent of crime experienced by the population resident in households (Appendix table 2). However, telephone-based survey (TCSEW) estimates are not directly comparable with previous face-to-face survey (CSEW) estimates because of changes to the sample and questionnaire (see Section 9). Percentage changes are presented using figures adjusted for these differences.

Back to table of contents

3. Trends in computer misuse

The Telephone-operated Crime Survey for England and Wales (TCSEW) showed there were 1.6 million incidents of computer misuse in the TCSEW year ending March 2022, an 89% increase compared with the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) year ending March 2020 (Figure 3; Appendix table 2).

While survey estimates showed continued falls in computer virus offences since the year ending March 2017, the trend in unauthorised access to personal information (hacking) offences remained fairly flat between the year ending March 2017 and year ending March 2020. However, hacking offences more than doubled in the year ending March 2022 (to 1.3 million offences) compared with the pre-coronavirus year ending March 2020. This included victims' details being compromised via large-scale data breaches, and victims' email or social media accounts being compromised. This increase may, in part, reflect the rise in the number of large-scale data breaches around the world. Findings from the Cyber Security Breaches Survey 2022 showed that 39% of UK businesses identified cyber breaches or attacks in the last 12 months.

Figure 3: The TCSEW showed hacking offences more than doubled in the year ending March 2022 compared with the year ending March 2020 CSEW

England and Wales, annual estimates

Source: Office for National Statistics - Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) and Telephone-operated Crime Survey for England and Wales (TCSEW)

Notes:

1. Data from the TCSEW are published as Experimental Statistics.

2. TCSEW data are not directly comparable with CSEW estimates. Estimates from the TCSEW for the year ending March 2022 are compared with the year ending March 2020 using comparable data and are not part of the main CSEW time series.

Download this chart

Back to table of contents

4. Characteristics of victims

Unlike many other types of crime, fraud and computer misuse, by their nature, are often committed anonymously, with the offender often not having a specific target in mind. As such, there tends to be considerably less variation in victimisation rates across different demographic groups than with other crime types.

The year ending March 2022 Telephone-operated Crime Survey for England and Wales (TCSEW) showed that:
Back to table of contents

5. Nature of fraud and computer misuse

Fraud: loss and amount incurred

Fraud victims incurred a financial loss in around two in three (64%) incidents in the year ending March 2022 Telephone-operated Crime Survey for England and Wales (TCSEW) (Nature of crime: fraud and computer misuse table 8a). Financial loss represents incidents where an amount of money or cash had been stolen or taken as a direct result of fraud, regardless of any later reimbursement, or any additional charges or costs incurred (such as bank charges, repair costs or replacement costs).

In incidents for which victims suffered a financial loss (Figure 4):

Figure 4: Losses incurred by victims of fraud, TCSEW year ending March 2022

England and Wales

Source: Office for National Statistics - Telephone-operated Crime Survey for England and Wales (TCSEW)

Notes:

Data from the TCSEW are published as Experimental Statistics.

Download this chart

For incidents where the victim suffered a financial loss, the victim was fully reimbursed in around three-fifths (62%) of incidents (Appendix table 11). This proportion varied considerably across the different fraud types. Victims were fully reimbursed in:

73% of incidents of bank and credit account fraud

64% of incidents of advance fee fraud

46% of incidents of consumer and retail fraud

13% of "other fraud" incidents

Fraud: cyber-related

An estimated 61% of fraud incidents in the year ending March 2022 TCSEW were cyber-related compared with 53% in the year ending March 2020 Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW). This suggests that much of the increase in fraud offences was because of increases in cyber-related fraud and may be related to behavioural changes during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and increased online activity (Nature of crime: fraud and computer misuse table 4). "Cyber-related" represents cases where the internet or any type of online activity was related to any aspect of the offence.

Computer misuse: experiences with computer viruses

For victims of computer viruses in the year ending March 2022 TCSEW (Nature of crime: fraud and computer misuse table 15):
Back to table of contents

Phishing is one of the main methods used to commit fraud. Half (50%) of TCSEW respondents reported receiving an email, text, or social media message that may have been phishing in the last month. Questions on phishing were introduced to the TCSEW in October 2021. (Appendix table 16).

Of those who had received phishing messages, 54% had received messages from fraudsters pretending to be delivery companies, 32% from banks, building societies or other financial institutions, and 29% from e-commerce companies.

Figure 5: Fraudsters sending phishing messages were most likely pretending to be delivery companies, banks and ecommerce companies

Telephone-operated Crime Survey for England and Wales, October 2021 to March 2022 interviews

Source: Office for National Statistics - Telephone-operated Crime Survey for England and Wales (TCSEW)

Notes:

1. Data from the TCSEW are published as Experimental Statistics.

2. Other includes "IT services" and "Retailers". These categories were added for January to March 2022 interviews.

Download this chart

Where respondents had received phishing messages, 3% replied or clicked on a link in the message. Of those who replied or clicked on a link, 11% provided personal information that could be used by fraudsters (equivalent to fewer than 1% of respondents who received a phishing message).

The year ending March 2022 TCSEW showed that (Appendix tables 17 and 18):
Back to table of contents

Advance fee fraud

Advance fee frauds occur when a payment is made to fraudsters, who claim to be in a position of authority, to transfer money or for a promise of employment, wealth or gifts (including lottery scams and inheritance fraud).

Bank and credit account fraud

Bank and credit account frauds usually involve falsely obtaining or using personal bank or payment card details to carry out fraudulent transactions. This can involve using a false identity, deceitful credit application, credit or debit cards, cloned cards, cheque books, or online accounts.

Consumer and retail fraud

Consumer and retail frauds occur when goods or services were paid for but failed to materialise, were misrepresented at point of sale, or were faulty or stolen. This includes bogus callers, ticketing fraud, phone scams and computer software service fraud.

Phishing

Phishing is a type of social engineering where the offender sends a fraudulent communication (often by email or text message) designed to trick someone into revealing sensitive information or to deploy malicious software, like ransomware.
Back to table of contents

Telephone-operated Crime Survey for England and Wales (TCSEW)

The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) estimates continue to provide important information in relation to longer-term trends in crime from year ending December 1981 to year ending March 2020. The TCSEW provides estimates of crime for the year ending March 2022.

New victimisation questions on fraud and computer misuse were incorporated into the CSEW from October 2015. Up until September 2017, the questions were asked of half the survey sample. Since October 2017, the questions have been asked of a full survey sample.

Estimates from the TCSEW are derived from a total of 31,204 telephone interviews conducted with household residents in England and Wales aged 18 years and over in the year ending March 2022. The sample was formed from respondents who had previously participated in the face-to-face CSEW in the last two years. TCSEW estimates cannot be compared with estimates for the year ending March 2021 because of overlapping reporting periods for some respondents. Therefore, TCSEW estimates are compared with the year ending March 2020 CSEW estimates throughout this bulletin.

Findings from our comparability study showed that TCSEW estimates are comparable with CSEW estimates after certain adjustments are applied. All direct comparisons between the year ending March 2022 TCSEW estimates and the year ending March 2020 CSEW estimates are made with the use of these comparable datasets.

Further information is available in our User guide to crime statistics for England and Wales: measuring crime during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

As we are collecting data in a new survey mode, the telephone-operated survey estimates are presented within this release as Experimental Statistics.

National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB)

The National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB) is a government-funded initiative run by the City of London Police. They currently collate received reports of fraud from Action Fraud and two industry bodies: Cifas and UK Finance.

Action Fraud is the national fraud-reporting centre that records incidents of fraud directly from the public and organisations by phone or internet, in addition to incidents reported directly to individual police forces. Action Fraud works with the NFIB to provide support and fraud-prevention advice to individuals who are victims of fraud and to ensure a joined-up approach to policing and detecting fraud.

Cifas facilitates fraud data sharing between over 600 organisations from across the public and private sectors in the UK. It is a Specified Anti-Fraud Organisation (SAFO) under the Serious Crime Act 2007, and it operates as a not-for-profit membership association. Its coverage includes all of the major banks and around 90% of plastic card providers.

UK Finance is responsible for coordinating activities on fraud prevention in the UK payments industry, and it represents members from retail banks; credit, debit and charge card issuers; and card payment acquirers in the UK.
Back to table of contents

10. Strengths and limitations

The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) is a large nationally representative sample survey that has used a consistent methodology over time. The survey covers crimes not reported to the police (or Action Fraud) and is not affected by changes in police recording practices; therefore, it is a reliable measure of long-term trends. However, long-term trends are not currently available for fraud and computer misuse, as full-year data have only been collected from the survey year ending March 2017 onwards.

Although the Telephone-operated Crime Survey for England and Wales (TCSEW) was set up in a short timeframe in response to developing world events, findings from our comparability study showed that TCSEW estimates are comparable with CSEW estimates with the use of newly created comparable datasets. However, TCSEW estimates for the year ending March 2022 cannot be compared with the year ending March 2021 because of overlapping reporting periods for some respondents.

The CSEW and TCSEW do not cover crimes against businesses and those not resident in households (for example, residents of institutions and visitors).

Fraud data collated by the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB) have wider offence coverage and population coverage (most notably, including offences committed against organisations) than the CSEW. In addition, the time lag between occurrence of crime and the corresponding data publication tends to be short, providing an indication of emerging trends.

However, data from Action Fraud exclude offences that are not reported to, or not recorded by, them. In particular, it is known that the proportion of offences committed against individual members of the public that are reported to Action Fraud is low.

Also, both sets of industry data from Cifas and UK Finance relate only to fraud that is identified and reported and only fraud affecting those organisations that are part of the respective membership networks. Incidents of fraud referred to the NFIB will mostly be focused on cases at the more serious end of the spectrum. As such, neither dataset can provide a complete picture of fraud in the industry sectors they represent.

There was a data submission issue from one of UK Finance's member firms whereby a large number of records were duplicated throughout February 2022. The NFIB IT Supplier has been asked to back out these reports from the system, but the process for this back out is currently in negotiation. Until the duplicates have been removed, the NFIB will not be able to provide a final figure in terms of the number of reports received from UK Finance for February 2022. Therefore, the UK Finance figures for the year ending March 2022 may be an underestimate.

Overall, the Crime Survey provides the better indication of the volume of fraud and computer misuse offences experienced by the adult population, as it captures incidents that go unreported to the authorities. This can be seen, in particular, by the large difference in the volume of computer misuse offences between the Crime Survey and the offences referred to the NFIB by Action Fraud. However, the two sources have different coverage, which means it is difficult to make meaningful comparisons between them.

For more information see our Crime in England and Wales Quality and Methodology Information report.
Back to table of contents

Office for National Statistics (ONS), released 26 September 2022, ONS website, article, Nature of fraud and computer misuse in England and Wales: year ending March 2022
Back to table of contents

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nature of fraud and computer misuse in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fraud and computer misuse offences have increased substantially over the last two years; while many other types of crime have decreased, affected by periods of national lockdown during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Fraud offences increased by 25% (to 4.5 million offences) compared with the year ending March 2020, driven by large increases in "advance fee fraud" and "consumer and retail fraud".

# data[].attributes.body
ICO (information commissioner's office) is now empowered to issue fines of up to £500,000 where there are serious breaches.

# data[].attributes.body
Physical Consequences

Sleep Disorders: Anxiety or guilt stemming from inappropriate online actions may lead to insomnia or other sleep disturbances.

Stress-Related Physical Symptoms: Persistent stress can manifest physically, leading to headaches, digestive issues, muscle tension, or even heart problems.

Isolation Effects: Some may experience withdrawal from family and friends due to their online behavior or fear of discovery, leading to further health issues associated with loneliness.

# data[].attributes.body
Emotional Consequences

Depression: Negative online interactions, such as cyberbullying or harassment, can result in depression, low self-esteem, and a sense of isolation.

Loss of Trust: Relationships with friends, family, or colleagues may suffer if others become aware of one’s inappropriate actions, leading to a loss of trust and emotional connections.

Regret and Self-Doubt: Inappropriate online actions can lead to deep regret, impacting one’s confidence and sense of self-worth.

# data[].attributes.headline
Online terror-related grooming & hacking

# data[].attributes.subject
Online terror-related grooming & hacking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Counter-terrorism laws are to be updated to keep pace with modern online behaviour and to address the issue of online radicalisation, Home Secretary Amber Rudd has announced today.

The government intends to change the law, so that people who repeatedly view terrorist content online could face up to 15 years behind bars. The proposed changes will strengthen the existing offence of possessing information likely to be useful to a terrorist (Section 58 Terrorism Act 2000) so that it applies to material that is viewed repeatedly or streamed online. Currently the power only applies to online material which has been downloaded and stored on the offender's computer, is saved on a separate device or printed off as a hard copy.

The move to tighten the law around the viewing of terrorist material comes as part of a wide-ranging review of the government's counter terrorism strategy, following this year's terror attacks, and will help provide an important and effective way of intervening earlier in an investigation and disrupting terrorist activity.

The legal changes will also increase the maximum penalty from 10 to 15 years to reflect the seriousness of the offence and ensure perpetrators are locked up for longer.

The new maximum penalty of 15 years will also apply to terrorists who publish information about members of the armed forces, police and intelligence services for the purposes of preparing acts of terrorism (Section 58a of the Terrorism Act 2000). There have been a number of prosecutions for terrorism offences which have featured armed forces personnel (or military establishments) as targets for attacks, including the successful conviction of Junead Khan last year for planning to attack personnel at a USAF airbase in Norfolk, and of those responsible for the horrific murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby.

The updated offence will ensure that only those found to repeatedly view online terrorist material will be captured by the offence, to safeguard those who click on a link by mistake or who could argue that they did so out of curiosity rather than with criminal intent. A defence of 'reasonable excuse' would still be available to academics, journalists or others who may have a legitimate reason to view such material.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Law tightened to target terrorists' use of the internet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Counter-terrorism laws are to be updated to keep pace with modern online behaviour and to address the issue of online radicalisation, Home Secretary Amber Rudd has announced today. The government intends to change the law, so that people who repeatedly view terrorist content online could face up to 15 years behind bars.

# data[].attributes.body
This can start to have an impact on the victim's behavior in general. They may start to show a more hateful/bullying attitude towards peers. They may even start creating similar content.

# data[].attributes.body
Mental/Psychological Consequences

Anxiety and Stress: Knowing that one’s actions online may have repercussions can lead to heightened anxiety and stress, especially if the individual fears legal action, social fallout, or reputational damage.

Guilt and Shame: Being aware that one has engaged in inappropriate behavior, particularly if it causes harm to others, can lead to feelings of guilt and shame, which can be psychologically distressing.

Paranoia: The fear of being caught or exposed may lead to paranoia and a persistent sense of being watched or judged.

Addiction and Dependency: For those engaging in risky or compulsive online behavior, there is a risk of addiction to certain activities (e.g., gambling, pornography), which can have long-term mental health consequences.

# data[].attributes.body
Sharing indecent images, especially those of minors, is a serious offence under the Protection of Children Act 1978, with penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment.

Sharing hate speech or extremist content can lead to prosecution under the Public Order Act 1986, with fines and imprisonment of up to seven years.

Sharing content that promotes terrorism is also punishable under the Terrorism Act 2006, with sentences of up to 15 years.

Victims may experience psychological effects including increased anxiety, aggression, desensitisation to violence or traumatic stress. Minors who view such content are particularly vulnerable as it can affect their emotional development and world view.

# data[].attributes.body
Criminal Consequences

Fines and Penalties: Many forms of online misconduct, such as hacking, cyberbullying, identity theft, and the distribution of illegal content, carry financial penalties. These fines can vary widely depending on jurisdiction and severity.

Prison Sentences: Serious offenses like cyberstalking, child exploitation, and certain forms of fraud may carry prison sentences, which can range from months to multiple years.

Court Hearings and Criminal Records: Being charged with online crimes typically results in court appearances, legal fees, and possibly a criminal record. A record can have long-lasting consequences, including difficulty finding employment, securing loans, or obtaining housing.

Inappropriate or illegal online activities have far-reaching impacts beyond immediate legal repercussions, affecting mental health, relationships, and overall quality of life. Educating oneself on the ethical use of the internet and respecting the rights of others online is essential to avoid these consequences.

# data[].attributes.body
It may encourage victims to join or agree with extremist groups or have strong opposing feelings towards specific religions or groups.

Especially for young minds who are easily impressionable, it may teach them that terrorism behaviours are acceptable.

This may be a way for people who don't have many friends or a support network to feel more accepted.

# data[].attributes.body
The victim may start unconsciously imitating the behaviors, it can give the victim a false conception of what is right and wrong.

It may cause the victim to seek out more explicit and extreme material

# data[].attributes.headline
Viewing violent, harmful or hateful material (perpetrator vs. victim) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Viewing violent, harmful or hateful material (perpetrator vs. victim) 

# data[].attributes.headline
Personal information being harvested (perpetrator vs. victim)

# data[].attributes.subject
Personal information being harvested (perpetrator vs. victim)

# data[].attributes.headline
Online terror-related grooming & hacking (perpetrator vs. victim)

# data[].attributes.subject
Online terror-related grooming & hacking (perpetrator vs. victim)

# data[].attributes.body
Tokaniman.Finikaso

ClareHelen.Pressley

Keely.King

Marie.Dimmick

Olivia.Hall

XiaoMei.CHEN

Samantha.Smith

Cheryl.Burton

Roselyn.Mahwira

Sumithra

# data[].attributes.body
Estelle.Jackson

Summer.Brown

Kyloran.Wilson

Agnieszka.Kuziak

FATIMA.IGBEN

Charlotte.Shuter

Jodie.Worton

Jenna.Parker

Sarah.Hayes

Shannon.Britland

Giorgiana Lacatus

# data[].attributes.body
Venicia.Braganza

Charumathy.Janakiraman

Leanne.Barnaby

Rasheda.Patel

Anna.Hanslope

LauraMae.Kelly

Kelly.Aimable

Jemma.Taylor

Shereen.Henry

Jenna.Richards

Sarmin Akter