Ranting, threatening, anti-cop Blogger slapped down with a fine

[teuchter]

s.43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 was repealed by the Communications Act 2003. The "replacement" offence was s.127 of the 2003 Act, which, presumably, is the offence which was charged. It is the only potential charge I am aware of which contains the word "menacing" as one of the things defined ... and that word features in the report.

Thanks for clarifying that - I said earlier in the thread that the 1984 act appeared to have been replaced by the 2003 act, but I wasn't sure if I had understood that correctly. Here is the relevant section:

127Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

(b)causes such a message to be sent; or

(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).

So are the terms "indecent" "obscene" or "menacing" defined anywhere, or is it entirely open to interpretation?

Like I said before, surely any porn website would fall foul of at least one of these?

 

[untethered]

I agree with agricola's comment that the fact that the comments were aimed at an officer involved in a prosecution probably led to the matter being treated a little more seriously than it may otherwise have been - it could, in effect, be seen as a low-level attempt to pervert the course of justice / intimidate a witness and the CPS and Courts take an extremely dim view of anything like that.

I take your point that that probably was how it was perceived.

But if so, why not charge with perverting the course of justice? As it stands, this case just looks like a heavy-handed attempt to censor legitimate criticism and commentary about the police.

 

[detective-boy]

So are the terms "indecent" "obscene" or "menacing" defined anywhere, or is it entirely open to interpretation?

"Indecent" and "obscene" are used in lots of different law and there are relatively large numbers of cases over the years in which definitions have been considered. "Menacing" is rarer. Unless a higher court has defined a word, it would be pretty usual for a court to reach for a dictionary definition as the basis of their decision.

In this particular case the Court clearly concluded that whatever was posted was "menacing".

 

[detective-boy]

But if so, why not charge with perverting the course of justice? As it stands, this case just looks like a heavy-handed attempt to censor legitimate criticism and commentary about the police.

The evidence for the relatively minor, summary only offence was there. I would be surprised if sufficient evidence for the very serious, indictable only offence was there.

(But, even if it was, I can't see how you can argue that a Magistrates court prosecution for a minor crime (max.penalty 6mths) is "heavy-handed ... censorship" whereas Crown Court trial for a serious crime (max.penalty Life) wouldn't be ... )

And the whole point is that it WASN'T "legitimate criticism and commentary about the police" ... it was a menacing, veiled threat to an individual officer.

 

[Yossarian]

I think this is quite ominous for civil liberties

God help us all if that's the case.

Oh no! I just threatened *everybody*...

 

[agricola]

The main trial is now over, Brent pleaded guilty:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/7526487.stm

 

[untethered]

He was sentenced to 12 months custody, suspended for a year, and ordered to take an offenders' training programme.

How on earth did he escape jail? This was a substantial (£20,000) and persistent fraud, where he not only bought goods at reduced prices on 37 occasions but then returned them for cash refunds.

 

[Dravinian]

In this particular case the Court clearly concluded that whatever was posted was "menacing".

This is an interesting thing. I am left wondering the question, did they conclude this because what was posted actually was menacing, or because of perhaps the other reasons you stated, intimidation etc, which they would have struggled to get a conviction on, so opted for a lesser crime they knew they could convict on regardless of whether it required stretching the meanings a little.

As other have said they are surprised by the 'annoyance' nature of these laws as if they were to actually be applied, I think the internet would be far emptier then what it is.

They aren't the only laws I have seen like this though, our entire legal system seems rife with these vague laws that could easily be applied in much stricter circumstances. It is quite worrying to think that all the laws are already in place for our country to be 10 times stricter then it already is, it is merely the fact that they are not enforced rigidly that gives us any freedom at all.

That really is an appalling situation.

 

[the button]

Ok, what does this mean, what law (exactly) is there about this. And why?

The 1728 Wireless Telegraphy Act. [/tobyjug]

 

[marty21]

he placed a lot of the money in savings bond - how sensible of him - he went out of his way to be fraudulent - but invested the ill gains conservatively

 

[agricola]

How on earth did he escape jail? This was a substantial (£20,000) and persistent fraud, where he not only bought goods at reduced prices on 37 occasions but then returned them for cash refunds.

He admitted it, the jails are full and he claimed he was his disabled mums sole carer. A mate of mine stole £70,000 + from his employer and only did three months, so its not as if they hammer people that commit those type of suspiciously white collar offences.

 

[XR75]

What were the details of this case?
Did he hack ebuyer or was it a glitch in the system?

 

[likesfish]

from what I remember of his blogg Ebuyer were really crap he phoned them up queried it a couple of times got through to some fool who said yeah thats ok.
then went Wahay and took them for every penny he could as you would.
then whined like fuck when the police nicked him
making any comment about the chief witness when your the defendant probably not the smartest move and likely to bring the state down on you like electoral fraud or passing secrets to foreign powers. The state loses what little sense of humor it has.
the police are a bunch of small minded shits get away with.
the copper who arrested me has a great career lined up with browns nkvd probably ok
Constable smith wife is an ugly whore who will probably be killed by one of her many diseased johns she services behind the gasworks visit the magistrate courts

 

[The Black Hand]

Doesn't sound very menacing to me - not a pleasant thing to say, clearly but sounds like the inference was definitely "God help that new-born baby - growing up with a twat like you for a dad!"

Maybe it makes more sense as a threat in the context of the whole blog but if the whole thing was jam-packed full of vows to wreak bloody vengeance on the local constabulary then I think that would have been mentioned...

Yep. It was not that serious. It's like those youngsters who were slapped an asbo for swearing in the playground cos 'an officer heard them'. It's totally meaningless in 99.99999999% of cases.

What this is, is 'net widening' - drawing ever more people into the criminal justice net by widening definitions of what is 'crime'.

 

[trevhagl]

Ain't it funny how the powers that be can publicise any evil threatening shit (like Purnells reforms) in the so called "news"-papers, yet when an ordinary member of the public puts THEIR views across he's prosecuted?
Big brother is interfering in every aspect of our lives

 

[kyser_soze]

Like I said before, surely any porn website would fall foul of at least one of these?

I'd suggest you read your company's polic on sending emails. You, and they, can be prosecuted for sending links to content that the recipient finds offensive, just as you are liable for the content of said email. Same applies to this. I'm not sure how the law works WRT anonymous BB posting, but if someone sends you an offensive PM, or consistently hassles you via PM I would imagine you can invoke the Communications Act and get a court order forcing the mods to hand over the IP address of the harraser.

Obviously, this would be last resort type stuff - you'd go to the mods first! But to call these powers 'Big Brother' and the rest of the crap on this thread is ludicrous - it's no different to the principle you don't make dirty phone calls, or call 100 of someone's acquiantances up and tell them their friend is a paed...

 

[The Black Hand]

Ain't it funny how the powers that be can publicise any evil threatening shit (like Purnells reforms) in the so called "news"-papers, yet when an ordinary member of the public puts THEIR views across he's prosecuted?
Big brother is interfering in every aspect of our lives

This is very true and shows that we have to defend the right to protest...