Twitter joke trial

Last updated

Chambers v Director of Public Prosecutions
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg
Court High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division)
Full case namePaul Chambers v Director of Public Prosecutions
Decided27 July 2012
Citation(s) [2012] EWHC 2157 (QB)
Transcript(s) High Court transcript
Case history
Appealed fromDoncaster Magistrates' Court
Court membership
Judges sitting
Case opinions
The message was not objectively menacing; the conviction was therefore quashed. [1]
Keywords

R v Paul Chambers (appealed to the High Court as Chambers v Director of Public Prosecutions), popularly known as the Twitter Joke Trial, was a United Kingdom legal case centred on the conviction of a man under the Communications Act 2003 for posting a joke about destroying an airport on Twitter, a message which police regarded as "menacing". The conviction in the Magistrates' court was widely condemned as a miscarriage of justice, [2] [3] [4] [5] but was upheld on appeal to the Crown Court. Chambers appealed against the Crown Court decision to the High Court, which would ultimately quash the conviction. [6]

Contents

Background

During late December 2009 and early January 2010, cold weather had resulted in considerable disruption across northern England. Robin Hood Airport in South Yorkshire was one of many airports which was forced to cancel flights. On 6 January 2010, [7] [8] [9] an intending traveller, Paul Chambers, then aged 26, [10] who was planning to fly to Northern Ireland to meet his then girlfriend (later wife), posted a message on Twitter:

Paul Chambers Twitter
@pauljchambers

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

6 January 2010 [11]

A week later, an off-duty manager at the airport found the message while doing an unrelated computer search. [9] The airport management considered the message to be "not credible" as a threat, [9] but contacted the police anyway. Chambers was arrested by anti-terror police at his office, [9] his house was searched and his mobile phone, laptop and desktop hard drive were confiscated. [11] He was later charged with "sending a public electronic message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character contrary to the Communications Act 2003". [9] [12] On 10 May, he was found guilty at Doncaster Magistrates' Court, [9] fined £385 and ordered to pay £600 costs. [10] As a consequence he lost his job [11] as an administrative and financial supervisor at a car parts company. [13]

Response

A number of legal commentators and celebrities criticised the conviction and called for it to be overturned. They include journalist Nick Cohen, who drew comparison with Milan Kundera's anti-communist novel The Joke ; [14] television writer Graham Linehan; [15] and the comedian and television presenter Stephen Fry, who offered to pay Chambers's fine [16] and subsequent legal bills. [17] [18]

Appeals

Chambers lost an appeal against his conviction. Judge Jacqueline Davies, sitting with two magistrates, [10] heard his appeal in Doncaster Crown Court; she judged that the tweet contained "menace" and that Chambers must have known that it might be taken seriously. [19] Thousands of Twitter users responded by reposting Chambers' Tweet including the hashtag #iamspartacus, [20] [21] in reference to the climactic "I am Spartacus!" scene in the 1960 film Spartacus.

A further appeal to the High Court was heard on 8 February 2012, in which the two judge panel of Lord Justice Gross and Mr Justice Irwin failed to reach a decision after initially reserving judgement. [22] [23] The appeal by case stated was made by Chambers' barristers, Ben Emmerson QC and Sarah Przybylska; David Allen Green, who acted for Chambers in earlier proceedings, [24] also acted as his solicitor, through Preiskel & Co LLP. [25] The appeal was entirely on points of law and centred on the correct interpretation of section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003. [23]

Chambers (centre), with Al Murray (left) and Stephen Fry (right) outside the High Court on 27 June 2012 Twitter Joke Trial 1.jpg
Chambers (centre), with Al Murray (left) and Stephen Fry (right) outside the High Court on 27 June 2012

A second High Court appeal, before a panel of three judges, headed by the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, opened on 22 June 2012. [26] One of the arguments made by Chambers' barrister for this last appeal, John Cooper QC, was that if the tweet was "menacing" so was John Betjeman's poem, "Slough", pleading "Come, friendly bombs, and fall on Slough!". [27] He also asked whether Shakespeare would have been prosecuted if he had tweeted his line from Henry VI, Part 2 (Act IV, Scene 2), "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". [27] The latter reportedly drew laughter from the judges. On 27 June, the judges announced a reserved judgement. [28] Chambers arrived at court accompanied by Stephen Fry and the comedian Al Murray. [28]

Chambers's conviction was quashed on 27 July 2012. [6] The approved judgement concluded that "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 [of the 2003 Act]". [29] Accordingly, the appeal against conviction was "allowed on the basis that this 'tweet' did not constitute or include a message of a menacing character". [29] [30]

It has been claimed by sources talking to The Guardian that staff at the Crown Prosecution Service had been in favour of dropping the case, to the point of informing Chambers, via his solicitor, that they would not oppose the final appeal, but had then been overruled by the head of the service, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer. [31] Chambers' MP, Louise Mensch, called for a House of Commons committee to investigate Starmer's behaviour. [31] However, a spokesperson for the CPS said that Starmer had not taken part in decisions about the case. [31]

Impact of the case

The case led to a review of the guidance for the Crown Prosecution Service of their use of Section 127 and other speech related offences for online content, which attempted to narrow the use of the section in prosecutions. The "grossly offensive" test has remained controversial and has been further reviewed by the Law Commission, which is examined offences to "improve the protection afforded to victims" while providing "better safeguards for freedom of expression". [32]

The result was the Commission's "2021 Modernising Communications Offences report", and the recommendations made in that report were accepted by the Government in February 2022. [33] The Government pledged to use the Online Safety Bill to amend the law to implement the recommendations. The Law Commission stated: [33]

The reformed offences will refocus the criminal law on communications where the sender specifically intended to cause harm, and that pose a real and substantial risk of causing at least serious distress. It will no longer be enough that the communication was “grossly offensive” regardless of whether harm was likely or intended.

See also

Related Research Articles

In jurisprudence, double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal or conviction and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. Double jeopardy is a common concept in criminal law - in civil law, a similar concept is that of res judicata. The double jeopardy protection in criminal prosecutions only bars an identical prosecution for the same offense, however, a different offense may be charged on identical evidence at a second trial. Res judicata protection is stronger - it precludes any causes of action or claims that arise from a previously litigated subject matter.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Summary offence</span> Crime tried without a jury

A summary offence or petty offence is a violation in some common law jurisdictions that can be proceeded against summarily, without the right to a jury trial and/or indictment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Serious Fraud Office (United Kingdom)</span> Department of Government of United Kingdom that investigates and prosecutes complex fraud

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is a non-ministerial government department of the Government of the United Kingdom that investigates and prosecutes serious or complex fraud and corruption in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The SFO is accountable to the Attorney General for England and Wales, and was established by the Criminal Justice Act 1987, an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prosecutor</span> Legal profession

A prosecutor is a legal representative of the prosecution in states with either the common law adversarial system or the civil law inquisitorial system. The prosecution is the legal party responsible for presenting the case in a criminal trial against the defendant, an individual accused of breaking the law. Typically, the prosecutor represents the state or the government in the case brought against the accused person.

United Kingdom has taken many forms of censorship throughout the history of the country, with either various stringent and lax laws in place at different times, especially concerning British cinema, entertainment venues, literature, the monarchy and the press. In a specific sense, the concept of free speech generally does not exist as a fundamental right within the country. British citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law. In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act, although a repeal has been proposed, with a replacement known as the Bill of Rights Bill 2022 announced with draft text on 22 June 2022.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Baker McKenzie</span> Multinational law firm

Baker McKenzie is one of the world's largest international law firms, headquartered in Chicago. Founded in 1949 under the name Baker & McKenzie, it has 77 offices in 46 countries and employs 4,809 attorneys and approximately 13,000 employees.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Communications Act 2003</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Communications Act 2003 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The act, which came into force on 25 July 2003, superseded the Telecommunications Act 1984. The new act was the responsibility of Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell. It consolidated the telecommunication and broadcasting regulators in the UK, introducing the Office of Communications (Ofcom) as the new industry regulator. On 28 December 2003 Ofcom gained its full regulatory powers, inheriting the duties of the Office of Telecommunications (Oftel). Among other measures, the act introduced legal recognition of community radio and paved the way for full-time community radio services in the UK, as well as controversially lifting many restrictions on cross-media ownership. It also made it illegal to use other people's Wi-Fi broadband connections without their permission. In addition, the legislation also allowed for the first time non-European entities to wholly own a British television company.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Magistrates' court (England and Wales)</span> Lower court in England and Wales

In England and Wales, a magistrates' court is a lower court which hears matters relating to summary offences and some triable either-way matters. Some civil law issues are also decided here, notably family proceedings. In 2010, there were 320 magistrates' courts in England and Wales; by 2020, a decade later, 164 of those had closed. The jurisdiction of magistrates' courts and rules governing them are set out in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court of Singapore</span> Lower division of national supreme court

The High Court of Singapore is the lower division of the Supreme Court of Singapore, the upper division being the Court of Appeal. The High Court consists of the chief justice and the judges of the High Court. Judicial Commissioners are often appointed to assist with the Court's caseload. There are two specialist commercial courts, the Admiralty Court and the Intellectual Property Court, and a number of judges are designated to hear arbitration-related matters. In 2015, the Singapore International Commercial Court was established as part of the Supreme Court of Singapore, and is a division of the High Court. The other divisions of the high court are the General Division, the Appellate Division, and the Family Division. The seat of the High Court is the Supreme Court Building.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law of Canada</span>

The criminal law of Canada is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. The power to enact criminal law is derived from section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Most criminal laws have been codified in the Criminal Code, as well as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Youth Criminal Justice Act and several other peripheral statutes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Justice Act 2003</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is a wide-ranging measure introduced to modernise many areas of the criminal justice system in England and Wales and, to a lesser extent, in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Large portions of the act were repealed and replaced by the Sentencing Act 2020.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Khmer Rouge Tribunal</span> Cambodian–UN court established in 1997 to try Khmer Rouge leaders

The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, commonly known as the Cambodia Tribunal or Khmer Rouge Tribunal (សាលាក្ដីខ្មែរក្រហម), was a court established to try the senior leaders and the most responsible members of the Khmer Rouge for alleged violations of international law and serious crimes perpetrated during the Cambodian genocide. Although it was a national court, it was established as part of an agreement between the Royal Government of Cambodia and the United Nations, and its members included both local and foreign judges. It was considered a hybrid court, as the ECCC was created by the government in conjunction with the UN, but remained independent of them, with trials being held in Cambodia using Cambodian and international staff. The Cambodian court invited international participation in order to apply international standards.

A private prosecution is a criminal proceeding initiated by an individual private citizen or private organisation instead of by a public prosecutor who represents the state. Private prosecutions are allowed in many jurisdictions under common law, but have become less frequent in modern times as most prosecutions are now handled by professional public prosecutors instead of private individuals who retain barristers.

Hate speech laws in England and Wales are found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, sex, disability, nationality, ethnic or national origin, religion, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation is forbidden. Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.

<i>HM Advocate v Sheridan and Sheridan</i>

Her Majesty's Advocate v Thomas Sheridan and Gail Sheridan was the 2010 criminal prosecution of Tommy Sheridan, a former Member of the Scottish Parliament and his wife Gail Sheridan for perjury in relation to an earlier civil case called Sheridan v News Group Newspapers. Tommy Sheridan was found guilty and sentenced to three years in prison, whereas Gail was acquitted.

Jacqueline Davies styled Her Honour Judge Jacqueline Davies is a Circuit Judge, working in the North Eastern region of the UK. She was appointed on 29 June 1993.

John Gordon Cooper KC is a British barrister specialising in human rights and criminal law. He is also a broadcaster and politician. He is a member of the Bar of England and Wales, where he practises with '25 Bedford Row' and the Australian Bar. He was an honorary president of the League Against Cruel Sports, and he was appointed honorary professor of law at Cardiff University in 2011.

<i>R v Evans and McDonald</i>

R v Evans and McDonald was the prosecution of two footballers, Ched Evans and Clayton McDonald, who were accused of the rape of a woman. On 20 April 2012, Evans was convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment. McDonald was acquitted. Several people were later fined after naming the woman on Twitter and other social media websites.

Nigel John Richardson is a British human rights lawyer who serves as a deputy district judge. He was appointed to that office in May 2009. As a lawyer, Richardson is known for representing victims of human rights abuses in high-profile criminal cases with international element.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mark Meechan</span> Scottish YouTuber (born 1987)

Mark Meechan is a Scottish YouTuber and former UK Independence Party candidate for the European Parliament. He uses the pseudonym Count Dankula.

References

  1. ↑ Martin Beckford (27 July 2012). "Twitter joke trial conviction quashed in High Court". The Telegraph . Retrieved 9 September 2012.
  2. ↑ "The Twitter "Bomb Hoax" case: worse than we thought?" . The Lawyer. 2 March 2010. Retrieved 19 September 2010.
  3. ↑ Mitchell, David (16 May 2010). "Sacked and fined £1,000 for a joke about an airport? - David Mitchell column - The Observer". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 19 September 2010.
  4. ↑ Cohen, Nick (19 September 2010). "Twitter and terrifying tale of modern Britain - The Observer". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 19 September 2010.
  5. ↑ "Jack of Kent: Why the Paul Chambers case matters". Blogger . Retrieved 19 September 2010.
  6. 1 2 "Robin Hood Airport tweet bomb joke man wins case". BBC News. 27 July 2012. Retrieved 9 September 2012.
  7. ↑ Hughes and Walsh, Mark and Jason (10 January 2010). "Twitter joke led to Terror Act arrest and airport life ban - Home news - The Independent". Independent. London. Retrieved 27 June 2012.
  8. ↑ Walsh, Jason (22 January 2010). "Twitter terror? Man arrested for venting about canceled flight – World news – The Christian Science Monitor". Boston, USA: The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 4 July 2012.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wainwright, Martin (10 May 2010). "Wrong kind of tweet leaves air traveller £1,000 out of pocket - UK news - The Guardian". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 17 September 2010.
  10. 1 2 3 "John Betjeman would have been prosecuted under Twitter joke laws, court hears". The Daily Telegraph . 27 June 2012. Retrieved 27 June 2012.
  11. 1 2 3 Chambers, Paul (11 May 2010). "My tweet was silly, but the police reaction was absurd - The Guardian". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 17 September 2010.
  12. ↑ "Communications Act 2003". www.legislation.gov.uk. Retrieved 17 March 2016.
  13. ↑ Sarah Lyall (2010). "Briton Loses Twitter Case, but Wins Following". New York Times. He was fired from his job as an administrative and financial supervisor at a car-parts company.
  14. ↑ Cohen, Nick (19 September 2010). "Twitter and terrifying tale of modern Britain". The Observer . Retrieved 27 June 2012.
  15. ↑ Linehan, Graham (11 May 2010). "Prague, 1965" . Retrieved 27 June 2012.
  16. ↑ Wainwright, Martin (11 November 2010). "Stephen Fry leads protest tweets against Twitter joke verdict | Technology | guardian.co.uk". The Guardian . Retrieved 27 June 2012.
  17. ↑ Siddique, Haroon (12 November 2010). "#IAmSpartacus campaign explodes on Twitter in support of airport joker". The Guardian. London.
  18. ↑ "Stephen Fry says British judges don't understand Twitter". BBC News. London. 8 February 2012.
  19. ↑ Wainwright, Martin (11 November 2010). "Twitter joke trial: Paul Chambers loses appeal against conviction". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 12 November 2010.
  20. ↑ Siddique, Haroon (12 November 2010). "#IAmSpartacus campaign explodes on Twitter in support of airport joker". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 12 November 2010.
  21. ↑ "Thousands of Twitter users express support for Chambers". Mashable . 12 November 2010. Retrieved 12 November 2010.
  22. ↑ "the Twitter Joke Trial" . Retrieved 3 December 2011.
  23. 1 2 Allen Green, David (7 February 2012). "Must read posts on the Twitter Joke Trial appeal". New Statesman . Retrieved 27 June 2012.
  24. ↑ "David Allen Green - Profile from Preiskel.com" . Retrieved 7 April 2011.
  25. ↑ "High Court Date for "Twitter Joke Trial"". New Statesman . 8 September 2011. Retrieved 8 September 2011.
  26. ↑ Allen Green, David (22 June 2012). "The "Twitter Joke Trial" returns to the High Court". New Statesman . Retrieved 27 June 2012.
  27. 1 2 Booth, Robert (27 June 2012). "Twitter joke humorous not menacing, high court judges told". The Guardian . Retrieved 27 July 2017.
  28. 1 2 "Paul Chambers 'blow up' airport tweet appeal judgement reserved". BBC Online . 27 June 2012. Retrieved 27 June 2012.
  29. 1 2 "Approved Judgment" (PDF). 27 July 2012. Archived (PDF) from the original on 27 January 2016.
  30. ↑ "Chambers v Director of Public Prosecutions [2012] EWHC 2157 (QB) (27 July 2012)". BAILII. 27 July 2012. Retrieved 27 July 2012.
  31. 1 2 3 Cohen, Nick (28 July 2012). "'Twitter joke' case only went ahead at insistence of DPP". The Observer . Retrieved 28 July 2012.
  32. ↑ "Reform of the Communications Offences". Law Commission.
  33. 1 2 Boughton, Lucy (7 February 2022). "Government accepts Law Commission's recommendations to reform the communications offences". Law Commission. Retrieved 26 September 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.