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.

Three Guilty over Philpott Children’s Deaths

The parents of six children who died following a house fire in Derby have been convicted of their manslaughter, along with their friend.

Mick and Mairead Philpott denied manslaughter but were found guilty at Nottingham Crown Court after less than eight hours of deliberation by the jury. Paul Mosley was also found guilty after denying manslaughter. Mick Philpot and Paul Mosley were found guilty unanimously, while Mairead Philpot was found guilty by a majority verdict.

Six children aged 13, 10, 9, 8, 6 and 5 died in a house fire on 11 May 2012.

The prosecution had alleged that Mr Philpott hatched a plan to start a fire with petrol to frame his former mistress, Lisa Willis, so as to gain an advantage in a custody battle over her five children. Ms Willis and her children had previously lived with Mr and Mrs Philpott and their six children and had recently left, taking her five children with her. Mr Philpott was concerned his previous convictions would harm his chances of securing custody and therefore intended to frame Ms Willis for the fire to improve his chances.

As part of the plan, Mr Mosley would break down the back door and rescue the children. However, as Mr Philpot lit the fire after pouring petrol through the letter box the downstairs exploded and the children, who were upstairs sleeping, could not be reached. They all died from smoke inhalation.

The Philpotts were arrested after their hotel room was bugged by police following the fire. Philpott was recorded as telling his wife to ‘stick to her story’. Forensics showed that all three individuals had the same petrol as used in the fire on their clothes.

Before leaving the dock, Mr Philpott was heard to say ‘it’s not over yet’. The judge, Mrs Justice Thirlwall, said the defendants would be sentenced on Wednesday.

The Law on Manslaughter and ‘Joint Enterprise’

The type of manslaughter that the defendants were charged with in this case is known as ‘unlawful act’ or ‘constructive’ manslaughter. To secure a conviction for this offence the prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the following elements:

• that there was a unlawful act (eg an arson type offence);
• which was dangerous (defined in law as an act which reasonable people would recognise may cause some harm to another); and
• that it caused another's death.

There is no need to prove any intention to kill or cause serious harm. It is enough that a dangerous and unlawful act causes death.

In this case it was not alleged that each of the defendants was responsible for each of the above elements. Instead it was argued that they acted as part of a ‘joint enterprise’. Under this law a number of individuals may be guilty of the same offence if they intentionally assist the main offender and ‘contemplate’ the carrying out of the relevant crime. So in this case it was alleged Mrs Philpott and Mr Mosley intentionally assisted Mr Philpott and contemplated an arson type offence would be committed. Because deaths resulted from this they were each guilty of manslaughter as well as Mr Philpott, who actually started the fire.

British Men Plead Guilty to Terrorism Offences

Today three British men have pleaded guilty at the Old Bailey to preparing for terrorism acts overseas.

Jahangir Alom (a former police community support officer), Imran Mahmood and Islamic convert Richard Dart all pleaded guilty ahead of their expected trial. They will be sentenced at a later date.

The three men were charged last year, following their arrest in London in the weeks before the Olympic Games, with engaging in preparation for acts of terrorism by travelling to Pakistan for training between July 2010 and July 2012 and by advising acts of terrorism by providing information about how to go to the country for the same purpose. Their precise activities have not yet been disclosed.

The Offence

Section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006 (which can be read here) provides that a person commits an offence if he engages in any conduct in preparation of his intention to commit an act of terrorism or assist others to commit terrorist acts. The offence is indictable only, which means that it is so serious that it can only be tried in the Crown Court before a judge and jury.

Sentencing

The maximum penalty for the offence under section 5 is life imprisonment. As the defendants have pleaded guilty they can expect to receive a discount off their sentences. It is common practice to discount an offender’s sentence when they plead guilty. This is to reflect the fact that this prevents the need for witnesses to go through the stressful experience of giving evidence and prevents the need for a costly trial. When a defendant pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity they can be given one third off of their sentence. When a defendant pleads guilty after the trial date is set they can be given up to one quarter off of their sentence. If a defendant pleads guilty just before the start of a trial or after the trial has started they can be given up to a tenth off of their sentence. Here, the defendants have pleaded guilty after their trial date has been set and could therefore receive up to a one quarter discount off of their sentences.

Pryce Guilty of Perverting the Course of Justice

Today the ex-wife of former cabinet minister Chris Huhne has been found guilty of perverting the course of justice for accepting his speeding points.

Vicky Pryce, 60, was convicted at Southwark Crown Court in London. The jury accepted the prosecution’s case that Ms Pryce falsely accepted Mr Huhne’s speeding points back in 2003 so that he would avoid prosecution. Mr Huhne already had 9 penalty points on his licence and faced losing it if he accumulated 12 points. Mr Huhne previously pleaded guilty to the offence in February, after initially claiming he was innocent.

Ms Pryce had adopted the little used defence of marital coercion at her trial, claiming that Mr Huhne coerced her into accepting the points and was present at the time when she accepted them. The jury rejected this, however. The court had heard that Ms Pryce wanted to expose Mr Huhne after he admitted an affair. In an email to a Sunday Times journalist, Pryce had said she wanted to ‘nail him’. For more information on the facts of this case and the defence of marital coercion, see this original article: http://lawscapeuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/perverting-course-of-justice-and.html

The verdict came after 12 hours of deliberations. This was a retrial of the offence after the first trial was stopped when the jury failed to reach a decision. The judge, Mr Justice Sweeney, had expressed concern about the first jury’s ‘fundamental deficit in understanding’ of the trial process. For more information about the first trial and the concern about the jury, see this article: http://lawscapeuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/perverting-course-of-justice-again-can.html

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has said that costs in the case amounted to £100,000. It said that Chris Huhne challenged the prosecution and then pleaded guilty at the last minute, which was expensive. The CPS has said it intends to apply for the costs of the case to be ordered to be paid by Huhne and Pryce.

The judge has told both Pryce and Huhne that they should be under ‘no illusions’ about the likely sentence they will receive. Perverting the course of justice is a serious offence and it is often punished with imprisonment. The pair will be sentenced at a later date. In the meantime they both remain on bail.

What sentence do you think Huhne and Pryce should be given? Do you think accepting speeding points for another person is a serious offence? Should the pair be given harsher sentences because of their high profile positions?