Twitter, Jokes and the Law
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2012.76.5.790 |
| Author | Alisdair A. Gillespie |
| Date | 01 October 2012 |
| Published date | 01 October 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Divisional Court |
Divisional Court
Twitter, Jokes and the Law
Chambers v DPP [2012] EWHC 2157 (QB)
Keywords Twitter; Internet; Mens rea; Communications offences;
Menacing
The appellant was aged 26 at the time of the offence. He was a registered
user of Twitter with the username @PaulJChambers. Through Twitter
the appellant met a woman and they began a romance. They had
arranged for the appellant to travel to Belfast on 15 January 2010. On 6
January 2010 it became clear that Robin Hood Airport in Doncaster was
experiencing difficulties due to the weather. In communications with
his girlfriend he posted two messages:
@crazycolours: I was thinking that if it does then I had decided to resort to
terrorism.
@crazycolours: That’s the plan! I am sure the pilots will be expecting me to
demand a more exotic location than NI.
Two hours after posting these messages he heard that the airport was
closed and he posted a message on Twitter:
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 message was public and would be visible to the 600 or so people
who followed the appellant on Twitter and also to anyone who searched
for the tweet. Five days later a duty manager responsible for security saw
the tweet and forwarded it to his manager who was responsible for
deciding whether the apparent threat was ‘credible’ or ‘non-credible’. If
it were found to be credible, then the matter would go to the Ministry of
Defence, whereas if it were not credible it would go to the airport police.
The relevant manager decided it was not credible and the matter pro-
ceeded to the police.
A further two days later, on 13 January 2010 the appellant was
arrested by South Yorkshire Police. The arresting officer made com-
ments on the police crime management system concerning the offence,
including ‘. . . 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’. However, the police sought the advice of
the Crown Prosecution Service who decided that he should be prosec-
uted for sending a message through a public electronic communications
network, a message that is menacing in character contrary to s. 127 of
the Communications Act 2003.
The appellant was convicted before the magistrates’ court and ap-
pealed to the Crown Court who held that the message was ‘menacing
per se’ and that the appellant was aware that his message was of a
menacing character.
364 The Journal of Criminal Law (2012) 76 JCL 364–372
doi:10.1350/jcla.2012.76.5.790
To continue reading
Request your trial