Malicious email / police involved
Discussion
LosingGrip said:
singlecoil said:
Not sure I agree. You are talking about how the recipient felt when he received the email, and how in point 3 he came to a conclusion about the sender's intentions. But it's not up to the recipient to conclude what was in the mind of the sender, that's the court's job.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1above link said:
1 Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety.
(1)Any person who sends to another person—
(a)a [F1letter, electronic communication or article of any description] which conveys—
(i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii)a threat; or
(iii)information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b)any [F2article or electronic communication] which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.
Got to be a bit careful what I google, as I'm using parents laptop...but I would think sending a link to porn is indecent, even more so if its the blokes sister. (1)Any person who sends to another person—
(a)a [F1letter, electronic communication or article of any description] which conveys—
(i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii)a threat; or
(iii)information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b)any [F2article or electronic communication] which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.
janesmith1950 said:
singlecoil said:
You might think that, but it's up to the court to decide it and unless you are one of the jury your opinion won't matter.
Is it something that can go in front of a jury, or is it summary only?Triable only summarily; magistrate only. So no jury.
ging84 said:
If a single screenshot of the video is grossly offensive by an objective measure, surely the whole video is indecent, the sister and/or the webcam site should be prosecuted for making the video.
If you aimed at a barn door how close do you think you’d come to hitting it? You can round up or down to the nearest town if you’d like. ging84 said:
If a single screenshot of the video is grossly offensive by an objective measure, surely the whole video is indecent, the sister and/or the webcam site should be prosecuted for making the video.
Production is not illegal, within certain parameters "The possession of pornographic images for private use has traditionally not been an offence in the UK. This means that UK citizens have been able to access content on sites overseas without breaking any laws, except for child pornography."
In this case it's the distribution with "the intent to cause distress or anxiety" that is the case at hand...
Vaud said:
ging84 said:
If a single screenshot of the video is grossly offensive by an objective measure, surely the whole video is indecent, the sister and/or the webcam site should be prosecuted for making the video.
Production is not illegal, within certain parameters "The possession of pornographic images for private use has traditionally not been an offence in the UK. This means that UK citizens have been able to access content on sites overseas without breaking any laws, except for child pornography."
In this case it's the distribution with "the intent to cause distress or anxiety" that is the case at hand...
techiedave said:
Bestiality too
Yes.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_63_of_the_Cr...
But not relevant to this case.
Did try to update this thread couple weeks ago but for some reason as it was older than 14 days did not appear in my list.
He got a £400 fine and pleaded not guilty but was found guilty. As he didnt mean it to be malicious then he couldn't plea guilty to it. He is glad it is all over. Big life lesson and hopefully will engage his brain in future.
He got a £400 fine and pleaded not guilty but was found guilty. As he didnt mean it to be malicious then he couldn't plea guilty to it. He is glad it is all over. Big life lesson and hopefully will engage his brain in future.
dave7108 said:
Did try to update this thread couple weeks ago but for some reason as it was older than 14 days did not appear in my list.
He got a £400 fine and pleaded not guilty but was found guilty. As he didnt mean it to be malicious then he couldn't plea guilty to it. He is glad it is all over. Big life lesson and hopefully will engage his brain in future.
Presumably he will have it on his criminal record for 5 years so something to bear in mind if hes applying for jobs as its usually a question on application forms / HR forms. If its one charge i assume it will then drop off after 5 years from a standard check.He got a £400 fine and pleaded not guilty but was found guilty. As he didnt mean it to be malicious then he couldn't plea guilty to it. He is glad it is all over. Big life lesson and hopefully will engage his brain in future.
dave7108 said:
When is this spent, i thought it was 2 years?
Rehabilitation of offenders act is 5 years I believe.Wrong - depends on sentence as below.
For adults, the rehabilitation period is one year for community orders, two years for custodial sentences of six months or less, four years for custodial sentences of over six months and up to and including 30 months, and seven years for custodial sentences of over 30 months and up to and including 48 months. Custodial sentences of over four years will never become spent and must continue to be disclosed when necessary.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 12th April 09:41
PorkInsider said:
OddCat said:
ging84 said:
Don't understand this at all
Could understand police involvement if it was a revenge porn issue, or an under age person, but no suggestion of either.
If a grown woman wants to share pornographic videos of her self on the internet and they find thier way back to her brother and he gets offended, who gives a s
t?
Don't the police have better things to do?
And finally, ladies and gentleman, we have a winner !Could understand police involvement if it was a revenge porn issue, or an under age person, but no suggestion of either.
If a grown woman wants to share pornographic videos of her self on the internet and they find thier way back to her brother and he gets offended, who gives a s
t?Don't the police have better things to do?
Beautifully put ging84. Nail absolutely hit on the head !!
The offended blokes sister is a grown woman and unless vulnerable should have fully considered the offence or embarrassment her actions could have caused her family. She decided the potential embarrassment was acceptable, her brothers mates found it and made a joke of it... that like it or not many men will actually find hilarious.... at worst all the friends will have egged the each other on - dare someone to send it to him type thing... like I said, a joke between a group of boys which is hilarious to some and poor taste to others. Certainly not grossly offensive if the now offended bloke ran about in with friends who would do this they’ll no doubt be crude humour flying about in WhatsApp group chats to demonstrate.... I think it was Russel Howard that coined the phrase ‘it wasn’t right but it was funny’.
Had the OPs son shared it over Facebook and tagged the entire world in it it’s a different kettle of fish.
garyhun said:
dave7108 said:
When is this spent, i thought it was 2 years?
Rehabilitation of offenders act is 5 years I believe.Wrong - depends on sentence as below.
For adults, the rehabilitation period is one year for community orders, two years for custodial sentences of six months or less, four years for custodial sentences of over six months and up to and including 30 months, and seven years for custodial sentences of over 30 months and up to and including 48 months. Custodial sentences of over four years will never become spent and must continue to be disclosed when necessary.
dave7108 said:
If its just a fine then where does this fall in to it?
See the link above. 
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff