Response to DPP Social Media Consultation - Article 19

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Articles 8 and 10 ECHR and Article 19 of the ICCPR.Finally, we wonder whether it is necessary to include the consideration at paragraph 39(d) that “thecontent of the communication did not obviously go beyond what could conceivably be tolerable oraccepted in an open or diverse society which upholds and respects freedom of expression.” We cansee the benefit of including a public interest factor, which reinforces the high threshold forprosecution. On the other hand we consider that the relationship between this factor and the “morethan” threshold test might be unclear to prosecutors and police. Disagreement and inconsistencycould arise if some relied on the test of whether the comment was “more than offensive, shocking ordisturbing...” and others relied instead on the test of whether the comment “obviously goes beyondwhat could be conceivably tolerable or acceptable in an open and diverse society etc.”4. Are there any other public interest factors that you think should also beincluded?In determining whether a prosecution is both necessary and proportionate, ARTICLE 19 fullysupports the additional factors identified by Alex Bailin QC and Edward Craven on the Inforrm blog,namely:• Whether the message is intended to be humorous: we consider that it is necessary to take thisfactor into account to ensure that prosecutions such as that in the ‘twitter joke trial’ of PaulChambers v DPP do not take place in future. This factor has moreover been taken intoaccount in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. In Nikowitz v VerlagsgruppeNews GmbH v Austria, 1 the Court gave consideration to whether the statement “remainswithin the limits of acceptable satirical comment in a democratic society” (paragraphs 25-26).• Whether it is a first time offence: a prosecution is more likely to be in the public interest ifthe suspect has already been convicted for sending communications of a similar nature in thepast. In the vast majority of cases, a warning would be more appropriate.• Whether there are concurrent civil proceedings being brought: this is consistent with theapproach of the European Court of Human Rights. In Raichinov v Bulgaria, 2 for example, theCourt noted that “the assessment of the proportionality of an interference with (Article 10)will in many cases depend on whether the authorities could have resorted to means otherthan a criminal penalty, such as civil and disciplinary remedies” (para 50).5. Do you have any further comments on the interim policy on prosecutingcases involving social media?1 (no 5266/03, 22 Feb 2007) 2 No 47579/99, 20 April 2006 8
ARTICLE 19 supports the approach of the guidelines that comments sent via social media should notbe dealt with as public order cases since the Public Order Act was intended to deal with cases wherethe defendant and victim have interacted on a face to face basis.Similarly, we believe that the age and maturity of suspects are very important factors, which shouldbe given significant weight in the context of social media communications.ARTICLE 19 further considers that due to the frequency of cross-jurisdictional communications viasocial media, the interim guidelines could usefully clarify this issue. Given the limited resources ofthe CPS, as a matter of practicality we conclude that communications via social media should onlybe prosecuted in the UK if both the defendant and the victim are within the UK.We would also welcome the development of a more coherent policy on sentencing for offencescommitted through social media. Much of the media attention regarding prosecutions forcommunications sent via social media has been focused on the inconsistency of the approach takentowards sentencing. Cases which demonstrate this inconsistency in particular are the contrastbetween the case of Matthew Woods who in October 2012 was sentenced to 12 weeks imprisonmentfor “jokes” on Facebook about missing 5 year old April Jones 3 with the case of Azhar Ahmed who inOctober 2012 was sentenced to 240 community service for posting a message on Facebook aboutthe deaths of soldiers, writing that “all soldiers should die and go to hell” 4 . These sentences alsostrongly contrast with the fine of £624 imposed on nine individuals who named and condemned arape victim on Twitter as “crying rape” and “money grabbing”. 5In particular, it might be useful for sentencing guidelines to address whether the public policyfactors in the interim guidelines, such as “whether the suspect has expressed genuine remorse”should also be taken into account to affect the severity of sentencing. This might be useful toprosecutors who are used to taking into account this factor at the sentencing stage in other criminalcontexts.3 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/april-‐jones-‐man-‐charged-‐over-‐1365779. 4 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-‐england-‐leeds-‐19883828 5 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-‐wales-‐north-‐east-‐wales-‐20207408 9
Page 1 and 2: The consultation processANNEX AThe
Page 3 and 4: Alternative formatsIf you require a
Page 5 and 6: Response Pro FormaWhen responding i
Page 7: parte Rusbridger [2003] UKHL 38 at

Response to DPP Social Media Consultation - Article 19

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?