A Christchurch woman spent thousands of dollars on civil court action to get a sex tape removed from the internet after it was posted without her permission.
Despite winning the case, police - who have been investigating for six months - are yet to decide whether the man will face criminal charges for publishing footage and photos on multiple porn websites behind the woman's back.
The devastated woman spoke out about her ordeal in a bid to dissuade others from posting intimate recordings without consent - and to encourage women subjected to similar "horrific" betrayals to take action.
She says she has no shame around her sexual choices, but the man had humiliated and disempowered her and she would not stand for it.
The pair met in September 2019 and soon after he asked to film them while they were having sex.
The woman was initially hesitant and said no - but agreed after he assured her no one else would ever see it.
She said they never discussed posting it anywhere and she never would have agreed to that.
The pair had a casual relationship, which ended amicably in October 2019.
"I forgot about the video, and I forgot about him," she said.
In early August 2020 a friend messaged the woman and alerted her to a video on Porn Hub - posted under a username that the man often used on social media with his photo.
Multiple versions of the video were published with explicit and lewd descriptions of the content, including that the woman was from Christchurch.
"I recognised myself immediately," she said.
"I felt sick. My heart was racing, my chest felt tight."
She messaged the man immediately, saying she'd never consented to him sharing the footage and asking him to take it down.
"I can do whatever I want with them. Nobody knows our identity," he replied.
The woman contacted Netsafe but ultimately had to contact each website carrying her image herself and apply for the content to be removed.
It has been live for almost a year and had more than 35,000 views.
In August last year, she complained to police, filing a formal statement that same month.
She followed up "several times" but there was no movement and in October, desperate to ensure the man would not re-post the footage, filed a civil case.
In court, the man admitted his actions and consented to an order to take down or disable the material and to never post it again.
"The ordeal has caused me extreme distress, anxiety, guilt, shame and distrust," the woman told Judge Tony Gilbert.
"I have no words to describe the hurt and upset."
The woman provided Judge Gilbert's decision to the Herald on Sunday.
"I can well understand [the woman's] upset at what has occurred because while she consented to the intimate visual recordings being made, she very certainly did not consent to them being splashed about the internet," the judge said.
He also ordered the man to pay the woman $1700 towards her legal costs - but to date not a cent has been paid.
The day the civil case was resolved the woman went back to police.
"I was pissed off by then. I just wanted someone to do something," she said.
Weeks later a detective called the woman and asked her to provide documentation that she had already given to police via email and on a USB drive.
This month the detective called back and confirmed the man had been formally interviewed about his alleged offending.
The case had been passed to the police prosecutor to "assist with a charging option".
When questioned by the Herald on Sunday about the handling of the case Detective Inspector Greg Murton assured the complaint - and all others like it - was being taken "very seriously".
He said it had been under investigation from the outset and police done an initial file assessment before making specific inquiries and gathering relevant information.
"When civil proceedings are under way it is common, depending on the case, to wait for the outcome before proceeding with or considering criminal prosecution," he said.
"The evidence produced and the eventual result of a civil proceeding can have a considerable bearing on a criminal investigation."
He could not comment further on the case as it was "still under investigation and may result in a prosecution".
The woman said the delay felt like "an injustice".
"When the HDCA [Harmful Digital Communications Act] was introduced in 2015 it made revenge porn a criminal offence and this is a blatant example of that," she said.
"I feel hurt and humiliated. I feel so disempowered."
Victim advocate Ruth Money said the situation was appalling and unacceptable.
"These delays are not the intention of the law and there are endless issues with the operation of the HDCA that need urgent attention - as the agencies and law itself is harming not helping," she said.
Also known as image-based abuse or sextortion, revenge porn is non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
It is a type of online sexual harassment and can be an offence under the Harmful Digital Communications Act.
Intimate images and videos can be of someone nude or semi-nude.
Often the images are produced and shared with someone consensually – but this doesn't mean this person has consent to share them with others under the law.
Image-based abuse can also include altered images or videos to make it appear that a person is in an intimate image or video they didn't produce.
Sharing or threatening to share nude or nearly nude images and videos of someone else without their consent can be an offence under the HDCA and a potential offence under other Acts.
Penalties can be a fine of up to $50,000 or up to two years' jail for an individual, according to Netsafe.
If someone has shared an intimate image or video of you, report it to the police.
Netsafe can also give information about how to get the online content removed and explain the options available under the law.
GP shortages prompt more patients to use emergency departments for care.