Twitter Users Beware

This week has seen the conviction of two individuals over comments made on Twitter. It also saw another individual narrowly escape prosecution for Twitter comments.

Each of the comments was made in relation to the murder of soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich, on 22 May.

Deyka Ayan Hassan, a 21 year old student, suggested on Twitter that those who wear Help for Heroes T-shirts ‘deserve to be beheaded’. She was subsequently threatened by a large number of people and when she reported this to the police was herself arrested. She pleaded guilty to sending a malicious message and was sentenced to complete 250 hours of unpaid work by Hendon Magistrates’ Court.

Benjamin Flatters, 22, from Lincoln, also made offensive comments  on Twitter following the brutal murder. He too pleaded guilty to sending malicious communications. However, unlike Ms Hassan, Skegness Magistrates’ Court sentenced him to 14 days imprisonment.

Mohammed Mazar, 19, of Woking, Surrey, was charged with improper use of a public electronic communication network following offensive comments made on Twitter related to the killing. He was due to appear at Guildford Magistrates’ Court on 11 June; however, the case against him was discontinued.

So what, exactly, were these individuals charged with?

Communications Offences

Ms Hassan and Mr Flatters were convicted of sending an article with intent to cause distress or anxiety, under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988.

Under that section, a person is guilty of an offence when they send to another a message which is ‘indecently or grossly offensive’, a threat, or information which is false (or believed to be false by the sender). The message can be sent by electronic communication (such as Twitter), a letter or by any other article. To be guilty of the offence the person must intend to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or any other person to whom the message is intended to be sent to.

For this offence it does matter if the message ever actually reaches anybody. The offence is simply to send the message.

The maximum penalty for this offence is 6 months imprisonment and a £5,000 fine.

Mr Mazar was charged with improper use of a public communications network, under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. Under that section, a person is guilty of an offence if they send a grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing message by means of a public communications network (such as by Twitter). Again, it does not matter if the message actually reaches anybody. The maximum penalty is the same: 6 months imprisonment and a £5,000 fine.

Social Networking and the Law

It is very easy to say things on social networks, such as Twitter and Facebook, which would not ordinarily be said in person. It is also very easy to forget the very public nature of what is said. Comments made on social networking websites are capable of worldwide exposure in a few mere hours. However, we are just as responsible for what we say online as what we say in reality. Social networkers should beware of the potential consequences.

‘Terror’ Attack in London: What is Terrorism?

Yesterday's news brought us the harrowing story that a man has been killed in a machete attack in Woolwich, south-east London.

It has been confirmed that two suspects have been shot and wounded by the police. They have now been arrested in connection with the murder. It has been reported that the dead man was a soldier, although this remains unconfirmed.

The Government has confirmed that it is treating the attack as a terrorist incident. Prime Minister David Cameron has said the UK will ‘never buckle’ in the face of terror attacks.

Early reports have alleged that the suspects are extremist Islamists, who carried out the attack as part of a jihadist-inspired fight against the west.

Footage has emerged of one man with bloody hands wielding a bloodied meat cleaver and making political statements. The man said: ‘I apologise that women have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don’t care about you.’ It has also been reported that the men were heard to say: ‘Allahu Akbar [God is Great]’.

In the wake of the attack a number of individuals have collectively expressed their disgust on social networking websites. Many have called for the death penalty for the responsible persons and have blamed the Islamic faith for the attack. The Muslim Council of Britain has said that the attack is barbaric and has no basis in Islam.

I believe it is important to add that conclusions should not be so readily drawn when so little is known about the attack. Moreover, sweeping conclusions should never be drawn from one incident. Justice should be permitted to take its course.

Doubtlessly, a very thorough investigation will now be conducted. In due course, if there is sufficient evidence, charges will be brought against certain individuals. It seems reasonable to assume that the relevant individuals will be charged with murder.

Terrorism in the UK

The attack is being treated as a terrorist incident. So what exactly is ‘terrorism’? Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism as: 

• the use or threat of ‘action’,
• which is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
• which is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, ideological or racial cause.

‘Action’ includes:

• serious violence against a person,
• serious damage to property,
• endangering a person’s life (other than the life of the person committing the action),
• creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
• anything designed to seriously interfere with or seriously disrupt an electronic system.

The definition of terrorism is very widely drawn and basically involves the use or threat of violence for political, religious, ideological or racial causes.

If the reports of today’s incident are true then it certainly falls within the definition of terrorism and is a terrorist incident.

So how would that affect any future trial? As explained above any suspect is likely to face a murder charge. If they are found guilty then the fact the act was terrorism must be taken into account when sentencing the individual. Section 30 of the Counter-Terrorism provides that a judge considering the seriousness of certain offences (including murder) must determine if the offence has a terrorism connection. If there is a terrorism connection the judge must treat it as an aggravating factor. An aggravating factor is a factor which makes an offence more serious and will normally lead to a longer sentence.

In the case of murder, the individual would automatically receive a life sentence, but the terrorism connection would affect the minimum term imposed on the offender. The minimum term is the minimum amount of time the offender will be in prison before they can be considered for release on licence.

What happened yesterday was almost certainly a ‘terrorism’ incident. It is to be hoped that the responsible individuals are brought to justice. In the meantime, my thoughts are with the deceased’s family.