"Bomb Threat" Tweet Conviction Overturned By UK Appeals Court

New submitter Kupfernigk writes "Paul Chambers was the man who was convicted (in England) of a terrorist offense based on a tweet threatening to 'blow up' Robin Hood Airport because they couldn't get snow cleared. Despite the fact that it was obviously a (feeble) joke, the Crown Prosecution Service actually went ahead with a prosecution and were able to convince a junior judge sitting with magistrates. The senior judges, including the Lord Chief Justice, said 'We have concluded that, on an objective assessment, the decision of the Crown Court that this 'tweet' constituted or included a message of a menacing character was not open to it. On this basis, the appeal against conviction must be allowed.' In effect, they have said that the original decision was not made objectively, which can be considered a severe slap for the Crown Prosecutor."

Comments

and...

[oPless]

A well deserved slap too.

Best Quote Ever

[Infiniti2000]

"It's Twitter, remember, not the pub!"

Severe slap my ass.

[NettiWelho]

Its not severe until the Crown Prosecutor gets fired and jailtime.

Slap?

[Anonymous Coward]

they have said that the original decision was not made objectively, which can be considered a severe slap for the Crown Prosecutor

Not really. A severe slap for the orginal judge, maybe, but at most a bit of a raised eyebrow at the Crown Prosecutor. The prosecution isn't supposed to try the case and decide who's guilty. Maybe the case should never have even been brought, but it's the original judge who really messed up severely for not saying so at first instance.

Re:Slap?

[Neil_Brown]

The prosecution isn't supposed to try the case and decide who's guilty.

Absolutely.

What might be worth considering, however, is that the prosecution does have a duty to determine whether bringing a case is in the public interest:

In 1951, Sir Hartley Shawcross, who was then Attorney General, made the classic statement on public interest: "[i]t has never been the rule in this country - I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution". He added that there should be a prosecution: "wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest" (House of Commons Debates, Volume 483, 29 January 1951). This approach has been endorsed by Attorneys General ever since.

From "The Code for Crown Prosecutors," at paragraph 10 of section 4.

The article in the summary provides that:

The judges noted there was no evidence before the Crown Court to suggest any of the followers of the ”tweet“, or anyone else who may have seen it posted on Mr Chambers' timeline, found it to be of a menacing character or, at a time when the threat of terrorism was real, even minimally alarming. (My emphasis)

Following the test set out in the Code, and taking into account the common public interest factors for and against prosecution, I am surprised that this prosecution would pass the public interest test, given a lack of evidence of harm, or of anyone finding it menacing.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge

[Halo1]

FTA:

Today, Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, [..], said: ”We have concluded that, on an objective assessment, the decision of the Crown Court that this 'tweet' constituted or included a message of a menacing character was not open to it."

When it's no longer clear where your title ends and your name starts, you've definitely found the right profession.

Re:Look

[cheekyjohnson]

Everything has its limits.

Only if you put limits on it.

Those limits are where your "free speech" results in real harm to other individuals.

Unlike in this case!

When you mindlessly apply these laws to people who clearly didn't intend to do any harm, you end up harming innocent people, degrading respect for the law, and wasting taxpayer money.

Plus, much of the people whining that no one can take a joke any more will be whining about why the police didn't follow up on the public comments of the next psycho who shoots up a mall or bombs a bus terminal, comments made before he did those atrocities.

No, because I don't worry about unlikely events, and I don't believe that people who are very likely not intending to do harm should be harmed just because there is a minuscule chance that they could. Incidentally, I also don't care for pro-TSA mentalities (everyone getting punished).

Now mod me as troll, because I don't tow the ridiculously naive and cluelessly idealistic slashdot party line on "free speech".

I think you picked the wrong story to make this comment on if that was your intention.

Re:A test

[Grumbleduke]

I think, as a test of the freedom of speech, this person should now receive death threats for the rest of his life. As a joke. For fun.

So you've just used a public electronic communications network to send a message calling for someone to receive death threats for the rest of his life. That could be considered a message "of an indecent, obscene or menacing character". Sounds like an arguable case for a prosecution under s127 of the Communications Act 2003; the same law this guy was originally convicted under.

Fortunately, today's ruling means you're probably fine, but it is something worth bearing in mind next time you incite death threats.

Or were you merely joking?

Re:Whoa

[safetyinnumbers]

Wait, there's a "Robin Hood Airport"? And we can't even get an "Elvis Presley International Airport" and he was a real guy.

It's usual to only name buildings after people who are dead.