Perpetrators of “revenge porn” offences are being allowed to keep explicit images of their victims on their devices, after a failure by prosecutors to obtain orders requiring their deletion.

An Observer analysis of court records in intimate image abuse cases has found that orders for the offenders to give up their devices and delete photos and videos are rarely being made. Of 98 cases concluded in the magistrates courts in England and Wales in the past six months, just three resulted in a deprivation order.

In other cases involving digital devices, such as offences regarding indecent images of children, these orders were made consistently.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) this weekend said more must be done to “stop ­perpetrators retaining these images and continuing to take gratification from their crimes”.

In one case earlier this month, a man was rebuked by magistrates for “thoroughly disgraceful” and “deeply disturbing” behaviour “designed to emotionally blackmail and control” his victim. The 35-year-old from Swansea was given a six-month suspended sentence, a rehabilitation order and a three-year restraining order – but no deprivation order, leaving the police with no legal power to retain and wipe his devices.

In another case last October in Crawley, West Sussex, a 32-year-old man was jailed for 26 weeks after sharing private sexual photos of his ex-girlfriend. He was given a ­restraining order until 2029 – but no deprivation order.

The findings point to a systemic failure of courts to impose the orders, and of prosecutors to request them in the first place.

A spokesperson for the CPS said: “While courts already have the power to deprive convicted offenders of nonconsensual intimate images and videos, we accept there is more we can do.” It is reviewing its guidance for prosecutors. The Sentencing Council, which produces guidelines for magistrates and judges in England and Wales, will also consider whether updates are needed.

Campaigners said the failure to force deletion in every case was ­leaving victims “living in fear” that the images could be shared again.

Sophie Mortimer, who runs the Revenge Porn Helpline, said that even if there was no such threat, just ­knowing the perpetrator still had access to them was a “vile thought”.

Mortimer said she also knew of cases where images obtained ­illicitly, such as through voyeurism, were not destroyed. One man who secretly recorded a woman was convicted and given a suspended sentence – only to be handed back devices containing the imagery afterwards.

When the victim challenged the decision, police said they had no legal power to act because there was no court order. “They told her: ‘Our hands are tied,’” Mortimer said.

She called for urgent changes to ensure content was destroyed in every case – from cloud storage, hard drives, and social media accounts, as well as physical devices. “The ­government says the courts already have powers to order this, but it’s pointless if it’s never used,” she said.

Elena Michael, of the campaign group #NotYourPorn, said ­allowing perpetrators to keep images and devices sent the message that they were “untouchable”. “You’re ­handing back the weapon that caused the crime and rolling out the carpet for them to do it again,” she said.

She said the group had worked with 450 victims and found there was “no consistent approach” to the issue. “Sometimes the police try really hard to hold on to devices or find a way of getting rid of ­content. But they’re in a situation where the law is not supporting them even if morally they know it’s right,” she added.

A victim in a case where the ­perpetrator was not made to delete sexual videos said: “It makes my skin crawl to know that he could still be watching these, let alone uploading them on the internet again.”

Emma Pickering, head of technology-facilitated abuse at the charity Refuge, said: “This critical loophole needs to be urgently addressed.”

The Observer’s analysis looked at cases of sharing or threatening to share intimate photos of a ­person without consent that have been heard in the magistrates courts since August 2024, using records from the Courtsdesk database of hearings in England and Wales.

It also looked at people convicted in the past six months of an earlier version of the offence: “disclosing or threatening to disclose private sexual photos with intent to cause distress”.

Of about 600 defendants who appeared before magistrates charged with the crimes, many were awaiting further hearings. The cases considered most serious were referred to the crown court for trial or sentencing.

For the defendants who were sentenced by magistrates, punishments varied widely. They ranged from 50 to 250 hours of unpaid work, rehabilitation orders requiring them to attend “building better relationships” courses, fines of between £100 and £450, and suspended or immediate custodial sentences.

Of the 98 defendants, 54 were also given restraining orders lasting from one to five years that, in 17 cases, explicitly prohibited posting about their victims online. The three cases where ­prosecutors did request deprivation orders included one in December in Bromley, southeast London, where ­magistrates ordered a 27-year-old man be “deprived of the photographs used in the course of the offence”. He was also given an eight-week suspended sentence and a five-year restraining order.

In another case in September, Hull magistrates jailed a man for 22 weeks and ordered that his phone be destroyed. In both cases the men had also been convicted of a further offence – harassment – as well as the intimate image crime.

In a third case, court records show prosecutors requested a deprivation order from Chester magistrates for a man convicted of sharing intimate photos. He was also given a 12-month suspended sentence and 200 hours of unpaid work in October. It is not clear whether the order was made.

The inconsistencies are revealed as the government prepares to introduce its new crime and policing bill to parliament, which seeks to tighten the law on sharing intimate images without consent.

Charlotte Owen, a Conservative peer, said she was “appalled” that content was being destroyed in so few cases. “No one should have to suffer from the ongoing trauma of knowing their abuser still owns intimate images of them,” she said.

Lady Owen previously introduced a private member’s bill that included a line on forced deletion of imagery, “including physical copies and those held on any device, cloud-based ­program, or digital or messaging ­platform they control”.

The government responded that there was already provision under the Sentencing Act 2020 for courts to deprive offenders of their rights to any property linked to the crime. The Observer’s findings show the power is not consistently being used.

Owen subsequently requested amendments to her data bill, suggesting the creation of a code of practice for the courts. On 28 January, the government responded that it would be “constitutionally inappropriate” to do so but that the Sentencing Council was conducting a review.

The Sentencing Council told the Observer it was monitoring the government’s plans for new intimate image legislation and would look at “what new guidelines or changes are required” when that came into force.

Owen said clear guidance was “urgently needed” for both the ­judiciary and prosecutors. It does not currently advise the use of deprivation orders in intimate image abuse cases. For other offences, such as those involving indecent images of children, prosecutors are told they should always request forfeiture and take a “robust approach” requiring “complete hard drives of any device”.

Clare McGlynn, professor of law at Durham University and an expert in image-based abuse, said it was a “real injustice” that deprivation orders were not routinely being made.

She said changes were also needed to protect the thousands of victims who “don’t want to go down the criminal route”, to enable them to request orders for the deletion of explicit images without going through a criminal process. “The law currently is failing to deal with these issues,” she said.

The Revenge Porn Helpline and #NotYourPorn are also calling for content linked to intimate image abuse to be made illegal, such as indecent images of children and terrorist content, to make it easier to require internet providers to block or remove it.

The act of sharing or threatening to share content without consent is illegal, but the content itself is not, even if it was used in a criminal offence.

They also want all images used in offences to be given unique digital identifiers – known as hashing – to make it easier to detect if someone tries to upload them again, and say the police response must improve to ensure devices are seized promptly, before suspects can delete evidence.

Data obtained by Refuge shows only about 4% of intimate image abuse cases reported to police currently result in the perpetrator being charged. The Revenge Porn Helpline has dealt with 60,000 cases since it was founded 10 years ago, with reports rising on average 57% each year.

The Ministry of Justice declined to comment.