How much money do you need at the High Court

[saaby93]

How much money do you need to risk at the High Court to set yourself free?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19009344
looks like a Jeremy Clarkson type comment

beeb said:

The message Chambers tweeted stated: "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your st together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

beeb-dominic said:

The case to uphold the conviction is simple: It doesn't matter if Mr Chambers' friends chortled as they read his tweet as a joke. It became a crime because anyone at all, of reasonable state of mind, could regard it as a genuine threat. And that's the argument he has to defeat.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-18607798
why cant I make that link work?

Edited by saaby93 on Friday 27th July 10:42

[Vocal Minority]

saaby93 said:

It became a crime because anyone at all, of reasonable state of mind, could regard it as a genuine threat. .

I disagree. I feel someone of reasonable mind would see it as a joke or a tupid thing to say. To take it seriously would be a case of paranoia or over sensitivity to me.

[CampDavid]

You're quoting Saaby incorrectly btw, he didn't say that, the prosecution did.

It's idiotic that it got this far

[samwilliams]

Vocal Minority said:

I disagree. I feel someone of reasonable mind would see it as a joke or a tupid thing to say. To take it seriously would be a case of paranoia or over sensitivity to me.

And the court has essentially agreed with you on that this morning. Was a ridiculous prosecution in the first place, followed up with a few stupid judgments. They got to the right result in the end though, just after wasting a lot of time and money.

[saaby93]

samwilliams said:

And the court has essentially agreed with you on that this morning. Was a ridiculous prosecution in the first place, followed up with a few stupid judgments. They got to the right result in the end though, just after wasting a lot of time and money.

That was my point - how much money would you have to throw at it on the chance you still might not win?

I tried a few times to get the quotes right

[anonymous-user]

He shouldn't have posted it but the legal people are currently having a field day making up nonsense 'crimes'

"menacing electronic communication"

What drivel. I can understand langauge threatening airport security being taken very seriously but to take someone to the High Court on the strength of a tweet is insane, they should be ashamed of themselves and pay a large proportion of their extortionate fees to charity.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 27th July 12:46

[voicey]

Why was the case heard in the High Court?

It cost me well over £10k in legal fees for my case to be heard (and won) at the Court of Appeal and that was with my best friend doing most of the prep work (he's a solicitor and didn't charge me a penny).

Compared to being banged up 23 hours a day it was money well spent but it was a little galling that the application to get my costs back was refused.

[audidoody]

Rather depressing that the nameless lawyer at the CPP who brought this nonsensical prosecution in the first place wasn't asked to explain themselves on national TV.

Does this mean I can now tell my followers I will blow up the M25 next time I'm caught in gridlock on J25?

[0000]

saaby93 said:

beeb-dominic said:

The case to uphold the conviction is simple: It doesn't matter if Mr Chambers' friends chortled as they read his tweet as a joke. It became a crime because anyone at all, of reasonable state of mind, could regard it as a genuine threat. And that's the argument he has to defeat.

So if his friends chortled at is as a joke, yet anyone at all, of reasonable state of mind, could regard it as a genuine threat... are they saying his friends aren't of a reasonable state of mind?

[aw51 121565]

voicey said:

Why was the case heard in the High Court?

...

I guess it was an appeal against his first (unsuccessful) appeal? (But I don't know how these things work, and hope never to find out.)

Glad it got sorted in the end; but what a waste of time, resources and money ! Like that student who was issued a FPN for disorder when he called a police horse gay... What are the powers-that-be thinking when they start these balls rolling, and then continue to push them along???

Strange Times...

[anonymous-user]

audidoody said:

Rather depressing that the nameless lawyer at the CPP who brought this nonsensical prosecution in the first place wasn't asked to explain themselves on national TV.

No but he has said that he appreciates that he judges have now clarified the situation.

Thats OK then, after all it wasn't his money being wasted.

Is it a requirement in the higher standings of the legal profession to lose all vestiges of common sense or does it just happen naturally?

[birdcage]

We are nearly as hysterical as the Yanks these days and that's saying something...

[10 Pence Short]

I cannot fathom how the CPS, Magistrates and the crown court could for one second think it was right to prosecute and convict on the basis of that message having menace.

[bitchstewie]

Wreck a mans life over what is, to anyone with an ounce of common sense, a joke.

Staggering that at no point did anyone think "Why are we doing this?".

[thinfourth2]

10 Pence Short said:

I cannot fathom how the CPS, Magistrates and the crown court could for one second think it was right to prosecute and convict on the basis of that message having menace.

because they can

Right and wrong has fk all to do with it

They are nothing more then vindictive pricks who hate the general public

[skinley]

thinfourth2 said:

10 Pence Short said:

I cannot fathom how the CPS, Magistrates and the crown court could for one second think it was right to prosecute and convict on the basis of that message having menace.

because they can

Right and wrong has fk all to do with it

They are nothing more then vindictive pricks who hate the general public

Thinfourth strikes the nail on the head.

[mybrainhurts]

thinfourth2 said:

10 Pence Short said:

I cannot fathom how the CPS, Magistrates and the crown court could for one second think it was right to prosecute and convict on the basis of that message having menace.

because they can

Right and wrong has fk all to do with it

They are nothing more then vindictive pricks who hate the general public

Quite correct, but there might also be an element of watching one's back going on here...

Whatever it was, it was idiocy in its purest form.

I see the CPS still reckons it was right to pursue this.

[Jasandjules]

thinfourth2 said:

because they can

Right and wrong has fk all to do with it

They are nothing more then vindictive pricks who hate the general public

It's even simpler than that. It's not their money they waste doing it. The same reason many Govt departments f**k up and don't care, because if/when they lose in court, it doesn't affect them.

[Deva Link]

It seems incredible to me that people at so many levels of the process, up to and including a Crown Court judge, thought the message was menacing, yet it gets to the High Court and gets turfed out.

[Jasandjules]

Deva Link said:

It seems incredible to me that people at so many levels of the process, up to and including a Crown Court judge, thought the message was menacing, yet it gets to the High Court and gets turfed out.

Welcome to what passes for justice in the UK.