UK: New U.K. Prosecutorial Guidelines Touch on 'Obscene' Communications

[DVTimes]

http://www.xbiz.com/news/165846

The U.K.'s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) last week issued new guidelines on prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media.

One section of the new guidelines hone in on communications sent via Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other social networks that are "grossly offensive, indecent or obscene" in criminal prosecutions.

But within those same guidelines, the federal agency, which is responsible for public prosecutions of those charged with criminal offenses in England and Wales, fails to define "grossly offensive, indecent or obscene."

Instead, the guidelines ? without clarity ? state that "indecent" and "grossly offensive" are "said to be ordinary English words."

The new guidelines set out the approach U.K. prosecutors should take when making decisions in relation to cases where it is alleged that criminal offenses have been committed by the sending of a communication via social media, the CPS says.

"The guidelines are designed to give clear advice to prosecutors who have been asked either for a charging decision or for early advice to the police, as well as in reviewing those cases which have been charged by the police," the CPS says. "Adherence to these guidelines will ensure that there is a consistency of approach across the CPS."

A person guilty of "grossly offensive, indecent or obscene" communication via a social network can face imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine or both.

[DVTimes]

See also: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/c...dia/index.html

[Cyber Fucker]

This is crazy... 6 months for a naughty pic sent to someone online?

[DVTimes]

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/c...ions_offences/

Improper use of public electronic communications network - Communications Act 2003, section 127

The Communications Act 2003 section 127, see Stones 8.30110B, covers the sending of improper messages. Section 127(1)(a) relates to a message etc that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character and should be used for indecent phone calls and emails. Section 127(2) targets false messages and persistent misuse intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety; it includes somebody who persistently makes silent phone calls (usually covered with only one information because the gravamen is one of persistently telephoning rendering separate charges for each call unnecessary).

If a message sent is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false it is irrelevant whether it was received. The offence is one of sending, so it is committed when the sending takes place. The test for "grossly offensive" was stated by the House of Lords in DPP v Collins [2006] 1 WLR 2223 to be whether the message would cause gross offence to those to whom it relates (in that case ethnic minorities), who need not be the recipients. The case also said that it is justifiable under ECHR Art 10(2) to prosecute somebody who has used the public telecommunications system to leave racist messages.

A person guilty of an offence under section 127 CA 2003 shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine or to both. This offence is part of the fixed penalty scheme.

It is more appropriate to charge bomb hoaxes under section 51 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. See Chambers v DPP [2012] EWHC 2157 (Admin) , and Public Order Offences, elsewhere in the Legal Guidance.

Section 127 can be used as an alternative offence to such crimes for example as hate crime (including race, religion, disability, homophobic, sexual orientation, and transphobic crime), hacking offences, cyber bullying, cyber stalking, amongst others.

[Jel]

Gotta be honest, I don't like it when someone shares a picture of a baby being choked to death and I see it as I'm scrolling down facebook with my morning coffee. Or some guy with his face split open by an axe, and so on.

Not sure there's any way to really fight that with criminal proceedings though, though how facebook allow those pics just fine, yet you get a warning if you post a pic of a woman's ass with no underwear that shows nothing except her buttocks. Then again, I guess there's plenty who don't want to see that pop up on their newsfeed either.

Bit of a pointless post really, but I've written it now

[pornmasta]

not sure