Prosecutions for use of Social Media

There seems to be a lot of activity around the subject of investigation and prosecution for the use of the social media.  I think the document people may be looking for is this:

Interim guidelines on prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media 

Issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions on 19 December 2012

If your query concerns Paris Brown, who recently stepped down from being a Youth Commissioner for Kent Police, the following CPS clarification may be of interest to you:

where a communication has been sent that is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false, there are a number of factors that are likely to mean that a prosecution is not in the public interest.

One of these factors is whether the suspect has taken swift action to remove the communication or expressed genuine remorse.

Brown apologized and removed the items. It is difficult to see any public interest in taking the matter any further.

The Scotsman has some figures which may also be of interest:

Scotland Yard revealed that three police officers have been sacked for misusing social media over the past five years. Allegations linked to the use of sites including Facebook and Twitter have been recorded against 75 Metropolitan Police officers since 2009, with 38 of the claims substantiated.

Disclaimer: this post is merely a link to relevant documents.

.....

Update 1 May 2013

Olswang LLP, who represented Paris Brown, have provided an excellent summary of the case. 

Essentially, the police had to respond to the 50 complaints about a few tweets although they've got plenty of burglaries, murders and rapes to be going on with.

Responding suitably should have taken about a morning to check the published guidelines and note that the material arguably didn't come with in the scope of the guidelines, it had been removed, an apology had been given, and Paris Brown was under 18 so the bar for prosecution is set very high.  They could have asked a CPS lawyer if they weren't sure what the guidelines meant.  Then they could have politely declined to take the matter further.

Instead - and this is what we should be kicking about - they used the mere excuse of complaints of being offended to confiscate property and interview a child under caution.    Then they had to drop any thought of charges since it was obviously a non-starter.  Well done to Olswang for highlighting this abuse of process.

...

It is obviously ridiculous that a teenager has to call in a lawyer to protect her from the agents of the state who should have had more sense than to join in with child-kicking.     Was their purpose in doing so nothing to do with the 50 complaints but rather a convenient excuse to examine communications between a police commissioner and her appointee?   

Following the irregularities in the Andrew Mitchell Affair (which is still being investigated)  there needs to be an independent investigation of the 50 source complaints to see if they were in fact genuine members of the public or if there was a concerted action by either a political lobby, police or those connected to them such as close family. 

Job of the Month - Chief of Staff, Kent Police

Quick - here's your chance for 90k's worth of goodies plus pension contributions and all the rides in blues and twos you can handle.  Luckily, you won't have to do anything nasty like real work or dealing with dangerous violent people - it's all pretendy work.  No formal qualifications or experience required. 

Ann Barnes  hasn't a clue how to do the job despite being elected to be the new Commissioner.  Her first puppet was an average teenager who was in tears within a week because Ann failed to recognize that actually, you are nuts to expect a child to carry that kind of responsibility and public exposure.  Her second appointment is supposed to figure out how to do the job, and do it, so that Ann can continue to collect the dosh for pretending to.

Anyhoo, here's the outline:

This post will provide the mainstay of direct support to the Kent PCC. This is the first role of its kind and as such the post holder will have the flexibility and freedom to create the framework of support needed by the PCC who has stated that her aim is to be the most visible, accessible and transparent Commissioner in the country.

This means 'For god's sake, tell me what the job is and make me look good'.  Fair enoughski, isn't that what the faithful 2-i-c people of the world do all the time?

This role is not a single focused senior administrative role, this is a high profile, potentially frequently pressurised, busy and varied role – you will never be bored!  As the manager of the Office of the Kent Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) you must possess excellent interpersonal skills that you can adapt to any situation. You will be an inspirational leader, who inspires and motivates people from all walks of life, whether this is the staff working in the OPCC, officers and staff from Kent Police, members of the public or those people working in partnership organisations and agencies – in fact anyone you come into contact with.

This sounds to me more like what was intended of the Commissioner, but Ann clearly hasn't any intention of doing it so it's a better billet than the usual 2-i-c as you don't have the ghastly admin or being made to do it all yourself.  On the other hand, you'll almost certainly have to polish Ann's ego and make it seem as if she has thought everything good while you collect the blame for anything which goes wrong.    At 90k plus bennies, this should slap a lot of balm on your own blistered ego.  After all, you didn't win the election, did you.

 You will be able to provide clear, objective, authoritative and impartial advice based on analysis and interpretation of complex information and situations.

Ann can't work out what the briefs mean so you are supposed to read them and explain them to her. 

As an effective horizon scanner, you should be able to anticipate the needs of the PCC and present information before it is requested.

Preferably psychic.

Alongside this you will have developed a structure to provide regular, relevant management information that informs and updates the PCC on progress without creating burdensome bureaucracy.

Pull some numbers out of your arse. They don't matter and there is no budget for gathering proper info - it was all spent on commissioners, youth commissioners and your wages.  The least you can do is a bit of cut'n'pasting, you ingrate.

By the by, you have to be nice to Paris Brown, the youth commissioner - but then for goodness sake, the child was always going to be made to look awful.  Think of it as social work, trying to patch up Ann's idiocy. 

Here's what Ann promised the people of Kent and what she is now relying on you to implement for her.

In a better world this job would not exist because the Chief Constable would already be doing most of it,  but since it does, why not put in an on-line application and give that money the very best chance of a good home where it will be appreciated. The real police will regard you with all the enthusiasm of something nasty on their shoes, but as soon as they get the drift of where you are coming from - being Ann's walker - they will at least temper their derision with pity.

My tip for the job would be to make friends with the mounted divisions, then get the horses out on PR appearances in the shopping centres. Everyone loves police horses.

Alternatively, if this seem too much like hard work and you are male, consider getting two women pregnant with at least five children apiece, then live on benefits. I gather it pays about the same.  On balance, I know which I'd prefer to subsidize.

Update 10/4/2013

The Mail reports that Paris Brown has stepped down following reports that the police have been dragged in on the basis that her tweets may be within the scope of the criminal law.  Her previous job - a trainee booking clerk in the parks department -  may not be open to her now that her employers have an excuse to sack her for her comments.

So now we've got an unemployed and possibly unemployable child under the age of 18 whose biggest sin, as far as we know, involves being a bit gobby. No arson, mugging, embezzlement, torture of animals, not even as much as a caution for dropping litter - just a kid mistaking their nascent musings for hip writing which, of course, never happened before in the history of text.

Ann Barnes is still there on £85k (which is surprisingly less than her lieutenant will earn) while having shoved a kid through this sugar-cane crusher in pursuit of her own public image.  The moment the allegations emerged she should have taken protective action instead of making the teenager humiliate herself in public for Ann's programme.

The only person who owes it to the electorate to step down is Barnes for having shown such obvious lack of commonsense and duty of care in the first place.  If Keith Vaz had any decency he'd resign too.  Yes, I know, don't hold my breath.

Update 11/04/2013

The Times reports that the police have been criticized by media lawyer Mark Stephens, who pointed out that Keir Starmer already issued guidelines on investigation of comments on social media. What exactly it has to do with Starmer, who runs the CPS but not the police, I'm not quite sure, but it is his job to advise about offences so it is probably worth checking what he says.  The point here is that twenty years ago a police officer would have understood that one is free to hold odious opinions and express them.   Now, the expression of those opinions - not just incitements against target groups - is something the state feels free to investigate so long as it has the flimsy excuse of 'somebody complained'.

These are the interim guidelines

The comments attributed to Brown were likely to fail the 'high threshold' test i.e. there was no public interest justification in pursuing them.  Or, put it another way, if Brown is going to be chased, then so should many of the commenters on the passing of Mrs Thatcher.

Paul Chambers Twitter Trial - post mortem

 "We have concluded that, on an objective assessment, the decision of the crown court that this 'tweet' constituted or included a message of a menacing character was not open to it.

"On this basis, the appeal against conviction must be allowed."

You can see how the magistrate at Doncaster magistrate's court in May 2010 may have been baffled by the high-power prosecution from the Crown Prosecution Service.  In a string of cases over the past two years they have been misapplying law which is broadly written so that they can use it when they need to. Instead, various jobsworths have been trying to score departmental points by bringing novelty cases which should never have got past the screening such as the golliwog in the window and the ludicrous John Terry case.

Paul Chambers was fined  and ordered to pay £600 costs  after being convicted of sending "a message of a menacing character", contrary to provisions of the 2003 Communications Act.  This famous message:

"Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!"

Much harder to see is why Judge Jacqueline Davies, sitting with two magistrates, dismissed his appeal his appeal in November 2010, saying that the electronic communication was "clearly menacing". 

It's clearly NOT menacing. Nobody gives you 'a week and a bit' in a threat.  In the context of the delay being down to snow, it was obviously a self-referential jibe at the expense of people who say unreasonable things.

There were linguists all over explaining the classic form of the joke, plus the fact that Chambers was fully identified, which should have given her a clue.  Maybe the two magistrates also on the bench were too much in awe of her, too sympathetic, to do what they should have done - take her aside and offer her a drink of water or maybe she should let somebody else hear the case? Maybe somebody not so het-up about personal matters?

Judge Jacqueline Davies lost her much loved husband,  Paul Clark  in  October 2008 and had trekked across the Sinai Desert in memory of him in 2009

Invent Partners thought she was just ignorant of the technology and so relied on what ever gubbins the CPS told her.  They sent an open letter, but not, unfortunately, until it was already obvious that she didn't understand what she had been told.

The nub of it is this: either Jacqueline Davies is a woman who doesn't speak English well enough to understand a joke or her personal grief intruded in to her judgment so that she failed to back-stop the CPS lawyers on the make.  The airport staff are absolved; they just have to report this rubbish, not take a view on it.

None of the magistrates come out of this well; they are supposed to be bastions of common sense under the common law, but at least three here allowed themselves to be cowed, or maybe they also didn't understand what they were being asked to rule on.

My condolences to Her Honour Judge Jacqueline Davies, but grief and ignorance are a bad mix at any time, disastrous in a judge who has not only to sentence the guilty but perform the function of stopping the state - in the person of the CPS this time - from oppressing the innocent citizen.

Judge Jacqueline Davies won't be the only judge who has been wrong-footed by the CPS.  It has been bringing cases, reckless as to whether it is likely to win or lose because it is using the process as punishment.

Paul Chambers had his life turned upside down, lost his job, has a criminal record which although quashed will always be revealed by an enhanced CRB check,  by CPS workers who have managed to hide behind a judge.

He is owed a huge  apology, reparations, and a job for life at the CPS as he now knows much more about the law than they do.

Update 11/04/2013

At the end of 2012 the CPS issued interim guidelines about the prosecution of alleged offences concerning the social media.

Here are the interim guidelines