A spate of recent cases where adults’ private images were shared without consent has sparked new questions about Saint Lucian law. Amid public debate and conflicting claims over what is and is not illegal, a review of the country’s legislation reveals both what is covered and what is not.
Saint Lucia does not have any laws that directly address taking or sharing intimate photos without the person’s consent. This also includes voyeuristic and upskirting images.
However, a lawyer explained that in some cases where someone is photographed without their consent, some legislation might still apply, such as parts of the Criminal Code, Computer Misuse Act, or data protection laws.
“These laws impose criminal and civil liability upon individuals or entities where they have published identifiable photographs,” a local lawyer, who requested anonymity, told St Lucia Times while reviewing a recent incident.
Criminal Code
Saint Lucia’s Criminal Code only covers a narrow range of pornographic images. The legislation makes the public sale of obscene pictures and videos illegal, but ties the offence to material “tending to corrupt the morals of a minor”.
The law also makes it a crime to threaten or abuse someone, including showing images in a way that causes harassment or distress. So, where visual material shared online leads to the harassment and distress of victims, aspects of the conduct may be addressed under existing legislation.
Blackmail and stalking provisions could also come into play if there is a pattern of surveillance or threats linked to the images.
“The provisions of the Criminal Code highlighted are applicable provided that the specific intent is established,” the lawyer states.
Computer Misuse Act
Saint Lucia passed the Computer Misuse Act in 2019. This law bans using a computer to share obscene or indecent material if it is done recklessly or to cause distress, anxiety, annoyance, or inconvenience to someone. The offence carries a penalty of up to a $10,000 fine or three months’ imprisonment; both figures double if the offence is repeated.
The act criminalises indecent photographs of children, but it does not include a general offence relating to violations of adults’ privacy.
The lawyer spoke to specific incidents involving upskirting or voyeuristic images taken without consent: “The Computer Misuse Act makes provision for heavy sanctions to be visited upon offenders who violate this legislation. It would be incumbent upon the Complainant to establish as a matter of law that they suffered annoyance, inconvenience, distress or anxiety to successfully prosecute a matter of that nature in conformity with that section of the act.”
Data protection laws
Saint Lucia’s data protection law was primarily created to regulate how businesses, government agencies and other organisations handle personal data. However, through legislation that aims to regulate the collection, processing, use, and disclosure of personal data, including identifiable photographs. It also contains offences relating to the unlawful disclosure of personal data by persons who hold or obtain it without authority, but it does not specifically criminalise voyeurism, upskirting or the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
A Call for Amendments
Unlike places such as Trinidad and Tobago, which updated their Sexual Offences Act in 2024 to cover voyeurism, upskirting, and sharing intimate images without consent, Saint Lucia’s laws do not cover these issues.
“There is much scope for amending the legislation to canvass the offence specifically,” the lawyer said. “It would be advisable to enact legislation that imposes strict liability upon the offender to be punished once the photographs are published without the necessity of establishing the effect upon the victim.”
At present, if someone’s sexually explicit or intimate photographs are taken and/or shared without consent, the lawyer believes existing Saint Lucian law provides only limited avenues for prosecution. Anyone bringing such a complaint before the courts under the current legal framework would have to prove that they suffered harm “and to the extent specified in the legislative provision to secure a conviction”.
