Family law solicitor gaoled for cyberflashing former client
TL;DR: Cyberflashing is a sexual offence in England and Wales. It involves intentionally sending or showing an image of genitals with the intention of causing alarm, distress or humiliation, or for sexual gratification while being reckless about causing that reaction. The maximum sentence is two years in prison, and some convictions trigger sex offender notification requirements. The full conversation and the sender’s state of mind can be central to the defence.
A trainee solicitor has been jailed after sending an explicit image to a woman he had represented at court. The case, reported by the Law Society Gazette on 1 September 2026, illustrates how an online communication can lead to a sexual offence conviction.
According to West Midlands Police, Mohammed Ahmed, 28, was a trainee solicitor working in family law when he added the client on social media, claiming that he had done so accidentally. He subsequently sent explicit messages and an explicit image of himself. He admitted the cyberflashing offence at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court on 21 August 2026 and received five months’ imprisonment.
The offence was aggravated by the fact that Mr Ahmed held a professional position as a trainee solicitor working in a sensitive area of law with vulnerable people. It is a position that involves a high degree of trust, which he abused horribly.
What is cyberflashing?
Before the dawn of the internet age, flashing was mostly confined to dirty old men in Macs. But as the keyboard and screen separated people many people – mostly men it has to be said – were emboldened to expose themselves in a way they would never do in person. So what is cyberflashing? It’s exactly the same as real-world flashing except done through a device rather than in person. In law, it is the sending or showing of a sexual image of genitals to somebody who doesn’t want to see it. The cyber flashing is governed by section 66A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and came into force in England and Wales on 31 January 2024.
You will, no doubt, have realised that the paragraph above does not say that cyber flashing is the sending of an image of the sender’s genitals. That is because a person could send a photograph or film of somebody else’s genitals and still commit the offence.
Although Mr Ahmed chose to send his images via social media, the law is not concerned with what service is used to send an image. For example, sending an image by a messaging service, email or a wireless sharing function will all qualify. The statutory definition also includes showing an image to another person or leaving it for a particular person to find.
What must the prosecution prove?
As with most criminal offences, there are two parts to cyberflashing: the act and the mental element. With cyberflashing, the act is very simple: the defendant send an image of genitals. That’s it. The mental element is where this offence gets complicated because there are two ways the prosecution can prove the required state of mind.
The first possible state of mind is an intention that the recipient will see the genitals and experience alarm, distress or humiliation. Under this part of the offence, sexual gratification need not be the motive.
The second possible state of mind is sending the image for the sender’s sexual gratification while being reckless about whether the recipient will experience alarm, distress or humiliation. Recklessness means being aware of a risk of that reaction and unreasonably taking it in the circumstances known to the sender. This is why “I did not mean to upset anyone” does not answer the allegation.
The offence does not require proof that the recipient actually experienced alarm, distress or humiliation. Those words form part of the test of the mental element of the offence. Evidence of the recipient’s reaction can nevertheless help explain the context and the harm caused.
Does consent make a difference?
The short answer is: yes.
The long answer is that consent is not a direct defence in that Parliament has not created a provision that says, “if the recipient consents then the sender is not guilty”. But, because the offence requires an intention to cause alarm, distress or humiliation, or recklessness as to whether those things are caused, a defendant who has genuine consent to send the image will not have the necessary state of mind.
The situation will be more complicated where the sender wrongly believes he has consent. If the defendant truly believed he had consent then he may well have a defence; but, a defendant who believes the image might be welcome but is aware there is a risk it will not will struggle to succeed at trial.
Other laws can also apply. Sharing someone else’s intimate image without their consent raises separate offences, and communications involving children require particular care. The CPS guidance also identifies other communications offences which prosecutors may consider where the elements of cyberflashing are not established.
What other defences exist?
The most obvious defence is that the defendant didn’t send the image. The factual context will be important here – is the defence that the image was never sent at all and the allegation is false or that it was sent but by somebody else? Either way expert evidence is likely to be crucial to proving the defence.
More difficult defences will involve the sender’s state of mind at the time the image was sent. For example, if the image were sent accidentally then the sender would lack the necessary intention to send the image and the necessary mental element.
If you are under investigation, preserve the original messages and devices. Do not delete material or edit screenshots. Tell your solicitor promptly about evidence which may assist, particularly if messages could disappear. Avoid approaching the complainant to argue about the allegation or seek its withdrawal, and comply with any bail conditions. Obtain advice before a police interview so that decisions about answering questions are based on the evidence disclosed.
Can cyberflashing lead to prison?
Yes. The offence can be dealt with in the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court and carries a maximum of two years’ imprisonment. A fine, community order or suspended custodial sentence may be available, depending on the circumstances and applicable sentencing rules. Immediate imprisonment is a real possibility, as Ahmed’s case demonstrates.
Sentence depends on the seriousness of the particular conduct. Relevant factors can include planning, repeated targeting, the recipient’s vulnerability, the harm caused and relevant previous convictions. An abuse of professional trust can increase seriousness: the Sentencing Council’s general guideline expressly recognises relationships between professional advisers and clients when explaining abuse of trust.
The court also considers mitigation, including remorse, personal circumstances and steps taken to address the behaviour. An early guilty plea can reduce the sentence. A reported sentence in one case is not a tariff for every other case, particularly where the report does not contain the full sentencing reasons.
Will a conviction put you on the sex offenders register?
It can, but notification requirements do not follow every cyberflashing conviction. For an adult, paragraph 33A of Schedule 3 provides that they apply where the victim was under 18, or where the offender receives imprisonment, detention in hospital or a community sentence of at least 12 months.
Once the statutory conditions are met, notification is automatic. It is a duty to provide specified information to the police and keep it updated, rather than a public list. The notification period is also fixed by law. Under section 82, an adult sentenced to imprisonment for six months or less is subject to seven years’ notification; a sentence exceeding six months but below 30 months produces a ten-year period. A suspended prison sentence also counts as imprisonment for these purposes.
A court may additionally consider a Sexual Harm Prevention Order where it is necessary to protect against sexual harm. Its restrictions must be justified and proportionate to the risk. Notification requirements and a preventive order are separate matters, each requiring careful advice.
What about your career?
For professional clients, there may be employment and regulatory consequences alongside the criminal case. For example, the Solicitor Regulation Authority’s sexual misconduct guidance makes clear that professional status must not be exploited for sexual purposes and that misconduct through social media can raise regulatory concerns. An acquittal or a decision not to prosecute does not necessarily bring a separate regulatory investigation to an end.
If your work is regulated, advice about the criminal case should take account of your reporting obligations and any separate professional investigation from the outset.
How Chetwode can help
If you are accused of cyberflashing, we can examine the complete communications, assess the prosecution’s evidence and advise on your response. Where the allegation is disputed, we identify the factual and legal issues that need to be challenged. Where an admission is appropriate, we prepare mitigation and explain the consequences for sentence, notification requirements and any proposed court order.
Contact Chetwode Criminal Defence Solicitors for a confidential discussion about your case. We will give you clear advice about the allegation, the available options and the next steps.