UK: Social Media And The Criminal Law

Last Updated: 20 March 2013
Article by Rhys Griffiths

First appeared in Entertainment Law Review, 1 March 2013

This has been the year in which the criminal law has tried to get to grips with social media.  There have been a number of high profile prosecutions of individuals who have posted abhorrent messages on social media websites.

In the past, internet trolls have operated on the basis that the internet allows them to operate outside the normal bounds of respect and civility.  It is easy to see why – in this virtual environment, where there is no proximity to the victim and often anonymity for the poster, there is detachment from real life.  The poster is therefore emboldened to do things which he would not otherwise do.

But the internet is real life.  The effect of malicious, racist and abusive messages can be devastating for the victim. There is growing public concern and intolerance of such conduct.  Recent prosecutions also show that the Crown Prosecution Service ("CPS") is alive to this issue and is willing to take action against offenders.

This article will look at the law used by the CPS to prosecute offenders, together with some of the practical difficulties associated with its application, before going on to summarise some forthcoming developments in this area.

The law

There are a number of laws available to prosecute individuals who post despicable messages on social media platforms.  The most commonly used is section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003 ("CA 2003").

It is deceptively simple.  Section 127(1) catches a person who posts a message which is:

  • grossly offensive; or
  • of a character which is indecent, obscene or menacing.

A person found guilty can be sentenced to up to 6 months imprisonment and/or be fined up to £5,000.

Recent examples highlight that the use of section 127(1) is leading to convictions, and that tough sentences are handed out as a result. In May 2012, Liam Stacey lost his appeal against a sentence to 56 days imprisonment for posting racially aggravated abuse on Twitter.  The messages related to Fabrice Muamba, who suffered a cardiac arrest during a televised FA Cup match between Bolton Wanderers and Tottenham Hotspur.  In similar fashion, in October 2012 Matthew Woods was jailed for 12 weeks (cut to 8 weeks on appeal) for posting offensive jokes on Facebook about missing Welsh schoolgirl April Jones. 

There is also the Malicious Communications Act 1998 ("MCA 1998"). Section 1 MCA 1998 catches a person who posts a message which conveys inter alia:

  • a message which is indecent;
  • a message which is grossly offensive; or
  • a threat

The sender must also intend to cause distress or anxiety for the recipient.

A person found guilty can be sentenced to up to 6 months imprisonment and/or be fined up to £5,000.

Recent examples highlight that section 1 MCA 1998 is also being used in connection with the posting of offensive messages on the internet.  In November 2012 a teenager was arrested and questioned by Kent police under suspicion of having breached the MCA 1998 for posting a picture of a burning poppy on facebook. Perhaps more surprising in July 2011 The Guardian reported that a 52-year old man had accepted a caution under the MCA 1998 for alleging that a contestant on Britain's Got Talent had been groomed for success on the show by Simon Cowell.

The practical difficulty

The application of these laws to social media platforms has not been without difficulty.

First, there is the issue of deciding where the line should be drawn and when an offensive message should be considered as criminal. There are some who say that vile comments should not be criminal and that Mr Woods ought not to have been jailed for posting sick jokes about April Woods, no matter how unpleasant.  It is introducing new obscenity laws through the back door. On the other side are those who are fed up with internet trolls and who do not believe that social media platforms should be a free for all where anything goes.  In other words, where an individual steps over the line and posts something which is not just offensive, but is grossly offensive, the law should step in.

The recent cases involving Mr Stacey and Mr Woods illustrate the sort of thing that the CPS and the judiciary are not prepared to tolerate. However, on the other side of the line is the case of Daniel Thomas, a semi-professional footballer who posted a homophobic message on Twitter about Olympic divers Tom Daley and Peter Waterfield.  Mr Thomas was arrested and interviewed by the police, but the CPS ultimately decided not to prosecute. In making this decision the Director of Public Prosecutions ("DPP") gave the following explanation about the sort of messages which will fall foul of the law:

"There is no doubt that the message posed by Mr Thomas was offensive and would be regarded as such by reasonable members of society. But the question for the CPS is not whether it was offensive, but whether it was so grossly offensive that criminal charges should be brought.  The distinction is an important one and not easily made. Context and circumstances are highly relevant and as the European Court of Human Rights observed in the case of Handyside v UK (1976), the right to freedom of expression includes the right to say things or express opinions "...that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population"."

In the case of Mr Thomas, the CPS explained that the context and circumstances of the tweet meant that a prosecution was not appropriate.  The DPP explained that:

"This was, in essence, a one-off offensive Twitter message, intended for family and friends, which made its way into the public domain. It was not intended to reach Mr Daley or Mr Waterfield, it was not part of a campaign, it was not intended to incite others and Mr Thomas removed it reasonably swiftly and has expressed remorse. Against that background, the Chief Crown Prosecutor for Wales, Jim Brisbane, has concluded that on a full analysis of the context and circumstances in which this single message was sent, it was not so grossly offensive that criminal charges need to be brought.

Before reaching a final decision in this case, Mr Daley and Mr Waterfield were consulted by the CPS and both indicated that they did not think this case needed a prosecution."

The distinction is not always easy to make between what is criminal and what is not.  A high profile example of this is what became known as the "Twitter joke trial".  The case involved Paul Chambers, who at the time in question was 26 years old and described by the Court as a "well educated young man of previous good character". Mr Chambers was a regular user of the Twitter website.  On 15 January 2010, Mr Chambers planned to fly to Belfast to visit his girlfriend.  However, on 6 January 2010 he learnt that Robin Hood Airport had closed due to adverse weather conditions and so he tweeted the following message:

"Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I am blowing the airport sky high!!"

The tweet was visible to Mr Chambers' 600 odd followers but nothing happened immediately.  The Court remarked that there was no evidence to suggest that any of Mr Chambers' followers, or indeed anyone else who may have seen the tweet, found it to be of a menacing character or even minimally alarming.  However, some 5 days later an off-duty security manager for Robin Hood Airport discovered the tweet when searching generally for tweets about the Airport.  The security manager escalated the matter internally and it eventually reached the airport police.  They took no action but forwarded it to the South Yorkshire Police, who proceeded to arrest Mr Chambers on suspicion of involvement in a bomb hoax.  Upon being interviewed by the police, Mr Chambers maintained that his tweet was only meant to be a joke.  Indeed, the police seemed to agree with this analysis given that their crime management system recorded the following summary:

"Male detained re making threats to Doncaster Robin Hood Airport. The male in question has been bailed and his phone / computer seized – there is no evidence at this stage to suggest that there is anything other than a foolish comment posted on "Twitter" as a joke for only his close friends to see."

The police referred the matter to the CPS who incredibly decided to charge Mr Chambers for sending a "menacing" message contrary to section 127(1) CA 2003.

Mr Chambers was convicted in the Magistrates Court and failed to overturn that decision in the Crown Court.  However, on appeal to the High Court the conviction was eventually overturned.  In doing so, the High Court held that for something to be characterised as "menacing" it needs to create fear or anguish of something unpleasant likely to happen to those to whom it is communicated or who may reasonably be expected to see it.  If the persons who are likely to receive the message would brush it aside as a joke, then the message cannot be considered to be of a menacing character.  As the Court noted:

"[If] the person or persons who receive or read it, or may reasonably be expected to receive, or read it, would brush it aside as a silly joke, or a joke in bad taste, or empty bombastic or ridiculous banter, then it would be a contradiction in terms to describe it as a message of a menacing character. In short, a message which does not create fear or apprehension in those to whom it is communicated, or who may reasonably be expected to see it, falls outside this provision, for the very simple reason that the message lacks menace."

That was plainly the case in this instance.  The airport security team, airport police and South Yorkshire Police all believed the tweet to be nothing other than a foolish joke.

The Court also highlighted the importance of considering a message's precise terms, including any inferences, and the context in and the means by which the message was sent.  In this case, the message was posted on Twitter, to Mr Chambers' followers, drawing attention to himself and to his predicament.  Importantly, the message was not sent to anyone at the airport.  The true meaning of the message was not a threat but a grievance: the airport was closed and Mr Chambers wanted it to be open.  Accordingly, on this basis and the true joke nature of the tweet there was simply no reason to say that the tweet was menacing and so the appeal succeeded.

One interesting legal issue to emerge from the case is the question of mens rea. The reader will note from the statutory definitions of the CA and MCA offences above that it is only the latter which prescribes the element of intent: an intent to cause distress or anxiety for the recipient.  In relation to the CA, the Court held that the required mens rea is intent that the message should be of a menacing character, or an awareness of the risk that it may create fear or apprehension in any reasonable member of the public who reads it.  Accordingly, if one intends the message to be a joke, even one in poor taste, then it was unlikely that the mens rea required for conviction would be satisfied.

Mr Chambers' case drew a great deal of press attention, not least because Mr Chambers was supported by Stephen Fry and Al Murray.  It provides a stark illustration of the difficulties faced by the CPS in deciding which side of the line a particular case falls.

The future

The growth of the number of websites which host user generated content means that there is a vast amount of material out there which, on an initial reading, is grossly offensive and/or menacing and so contrary to the criminal law.  However, it cannot possibly be right that they should all be investigated.  There is not the time or the resources.  The CPS cannot police the internet.

How should the CPS decide which messages warrant further investigation and prosecution, and which should just be left alone?  As the DPP said recently:

"[T]he CPS has the task of balancing the fundamental right of free speech and the need to prosecute serious wrongdoing on a case by case basis. That often involves very difficult judgment calls and, in the largely unchartered territory of social media, the CPS is proceeding on a case by case basis. In some cases it is clear that a criminal prosecution is the appropriate response to conduct which is complained about, for example where there is a sustained campaign of harassment of an individual, where court orders are flouted or where grossly offensive or threatening remarks are made and maintained. But in many other cases a criminal prosecution will not be the appropriate response. If the fundamental right to free speech is to be respected, the threshold for criminal prosecution has to be a high one and a prosecution has to be required in the public interest."

In light of these difficulties, the CPS has announced that it is to set up a consultation process aimed at gathering together the opinions of campaigners, media lawyers, academics, social media experts and law enforcement bodies.  The object of this process is to arrive at a set of guidelines which will assist the CPS to make clear and consistent decision on which cases warrant a prosecution.

It is obviously a good idea for the CPS to consult on this issue.  There are very many practical difficulties involved in applying the criminal law to social media platforms.  A sensible and pragmatic solution needs to be found and the chances of that happening are increased by having a proper consultation.  It is hoped that this will be achieved and that the guidelines will help the CPS to decide when it is worth pursuing a complaint.  At the time of writing, the draft guidelines were not yet published.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions