Arsehole Justice: Head of Humberside Police wonders why justice isn'...

Arsehole Justice: Head of Humberside Police wonders why justice isn'...: I read an article in The Independent today that quoted Tim Hollis , Chief Constable of Humberside Police. In the wake of the worst riots the...

Arsehole Justice: Shy 19 year old woman of good character could go t...

Arsehole Justice: Shy 19 year old woman of good character could go t...: If you've read some of our recent posts then you may be familiar with the case of 19 year old Hollie Bentley from Wakefield, West Yorkshire....

Arsehole Justice: Social media turns everybody into wankers.

Arsehole Justice: Social media turns everybody into wankers.: Social media turns everybody into wankers.

It's as simple as that. As soon as anybody gets involved in social media, they immediately tu...

Arsehole Justice: Hollie Bentley (Facebook Riot Girl) - case referre...

Arsehole Justice: Hollie Bentley (Facebook Riot Girl) - case referre...: The AJs just keep on rolling in. Today at Wakefield Magistrate's Court in West Yorkshire, a young woman named Hollie Bentley was told that h...

Arsehole Justice: Another Facebook related Communications Act convic...

Arsehole Justice: Another Facebook related Communications Act convic...: I will depart from cynicism just to say that I've never been more afraid for the health of free expression in Britain. This post is on the l...

Another Facebook Communications Act conviction. Sigh. FOI again.

There been another conviction under the Communications Act post UK riots, this time of an adult. Details here: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/08/23/man-jailed-for-four-months-over-facebook-attempt-to-start-riots-in-bangor-91466-29288008/. This time, a custodial sentence of 4 months was handed out. I've submitted a query to CPS Wales as follows:

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to you seeking information about a case recently heard in the Magistrates’ Court at Caernarfon concerning 21 year old David Glyn Jones of Bangor, Gwynedd who has been charged and convicted of an offence involving an update he placed on his Facebook page on the 9th of August. The case has been reported here <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-14631184> and here <http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/08/23/man-jailed-for-four-months-over-facebook-attempt-to-start-riots-in-bangor-91466-29288008/>. It appears that the Facebook update was only live for 20 minutes.

Can you please explain why the Serious Crime Act 2007 was not applied as it had been in other similar cases around the same period of time? Also please give details about how the Full Code Test was applied in this case. I’m particularly interested in the evidential stage. Was the defendant advised by the CPS that he must enter a guilty plea under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 if he did not deny sending the offending communication? Given the fast track nature of this prosecution, I am requesting an expedited response please. Email responses are preferred. Thank you.

Regards,

Matt Flaherty

In this case someone actually turned the poor guy in, but I'm still concerned that once again the Serious Crime Act was dismissed in favour of the Communications Act, which suggests that the CPS felt there was no need to prove intent under the latter. Although 2 weeks is considerably more time to prepare a defence than the 2 days allowed the unnamed defendant in the Bury St Edmunds case, it's still really not enough. Section 127 of the Communications Act is not well understood. A court appointed public defender is unlikely to be in a position to give good advice. On a personal note, I have never been more afraid for the health of free expression in Britain.

Here are the contact details for CPS Wales:

CPS Wales
20th Floor, Capital Tower
Greyfriars Road
Cardiff CF10 3PL

Telephone: 02920 803800
Fax: 02920 803802

Email: wales.communications@cps.gsi.gov.uk

FOI request to Suffolk CPS about Bury St Edmunds Facebook case

I've just submitted this Freedom of Information request to the CPS:

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to you seeking information about a case recently heard in the Magistrates’ Court at Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk about a 17 year old male defendant who has not been named and has been charged and convicted of an offence involving an update he placed on his Facebook page on the 9th of August. The case has been reported here <http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/west_suffolk_facebook_riot_teen_was_idiot_1_991897> and here <http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/17/facebook-ban-teenager-encouraged-rioters?intcmp=239>. It appears that the case was first brought before the court within two days of the offence.

Can you please confirm that the charge in this case fell under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003? If so, please explain why the Serious Crime Act 2007 was not applied as it had been in other similar cases around the same period of time. Also please give details about how the Full Code Test was applied in this case. I’m particularly interested in the evidential stage. Was the defendant advised by the CPS that he must enter a guilty plea if he did not deny sending the offending communication? As the prosecution was expedited very quickly, I would consider an expedited response to my query to be appropriate; therefore, I ask that you please respond by Friday, the 26th of August. Email responses are preferred. Thank you.

I doubt the CPS will honour my request for an expedited response, but I thought I'd give it a try. If you're wondering why I'm interested in this case, read this article which I also wrote.

Arsehole Justice: Speedy prosecution of Facebook teen means no time ...

"I am so angry about this that I don't even know where to start, so I'll just start. I may need to actually restrain myself. *Deep breaths* A case was brought before the Magistrates Court in Bury St. Edmunds, West Suffolk last week concerning a 17 year old boy who posted an update to Facebook that has been viewed as an invitation to start riots. I knew about this case when I saw itwritten up in the Guardian a few days ago after sentencing. The sentence was a 12 month ban from all social media and some other non-custodial terms. What was not immediately apparent to me when I read that article was that the youth was charged under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 for sending a menacing message. This is the same charge under which Paul Chambers was convicted and which he is still appealing in what has become known as the Twitter Joke Trial..."

Read more...

New blog - Arsehole Justice

Hi *waves*. I'm pissed off about the rushed hearings and spate of disproportionate sentencing I've seen following the UK riots of last week. This has prompted me to start a new blog which I've titled "Arsehole Justice", where I feel more free to express the scorn and vitriol I'm feeling towards the ludicrous prosecutions and ridiculous judgements that have been passed down. Jurists have been acting out in ways that make some of these defendants seem like model citizens by comparison. It really is chilling. Look at this excerpt from the Guardian:

In sentencing four other convicted Manchester rioters, a crown court judge, Andrew Gilbart QC, made clear why he was disregarding sentencing guidelines when he said "the offences of the night of 9 August … takes them completely outside the usual context of criminality".

"The principal purpose is that the courts should show that outbursts of criminal behaviour like this will be and must be met with sentences longer than they would be if the offences had been committed in isolation," he said. "For those reasons, I consider that the sentencing guidelines for specific offences are of much less weight in the context of the current case, and can properly be departed from."

This is just such a ludicrous thing to say, and any qualified jurist, let alone a Crown Court judge, ought to know better. It makes a mockery of proportionality, which is an absolutely fundamental principle in British justice, indeed in any decent justice system. These knee-jerk responses to some genuinely terrible events are the real tragedy because they undermine the legitimacy of the courts and ignore their actual principal purpose, which first and foremost is to protect the innocent. As I've said over on Arsehole Justice, nothing takes an offence "completely outside the usual context of criminality." Nothing. There are sentencing guidelines that have evolved to meet the challenges of law enforcement and take into account both mitigating and aggravating factors. To dismiss these guidelines is to flush any notion of justice down the toilet. I happen to think that justice and the rule of law are important, and so I will not stand for it. If you feel the same way then perhaps you'd like to become a contributor. Let me know.

Arsehole Justice: Judge Elgan Edwards QC dishes out some...

Judge Elgan Edwards QC dishes out some Arsehole Justice in Cheshire

"From the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/16/facebook-riot-calls-men-jailed

Judge Elgan Edwards QC has dished out some serious Arsehole Justice against the defendants Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan and Jordan Blackshaw in Chester Crown Court. These two men were charged with inciting unrest under sections 44 and 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, which carried a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. Both men received 4 years in prison for creating Facebook pages that appeared to be organizing riots in their local communities, neither of which resulted in any actual disorder and at least one of which was regarded as a joke by its author..."