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

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

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.