Malicious email / police involved

[Red Devil]

OddCat said:

Hold on. I'm sorry but this is getting mental...

No matter how the womans brother found out, or who told him, the fact remains that he has been directed to something that is in the public domain.

Maybe he thought his sister was an angel. Maybe it has 'hurt his feelings' to see his sister doing that (mind you, given what it is supposed to have said in the text accompanying the message, he could always gave NOT followed the link / opened the attachment)

Talk about shooting the messenger !!

Bit radical I know but maybe the bloke should have a word with his sister !!!!

Jezzzz..

Insufficient e, too much
Or were you thinking of jizz?

It will be ridiculous if this doesn't end up as NFA.

[OddCat]

dave7108 said:

Just to clarify the above, my son didnt tell him that he sent the email. The receiver told everyone he was going to the police and my son at this point probably crapped his pants.

He hasnt spoken to his friend yet on the police's advice

Hold on. The friend must know your son sent it unless plod round your way are psychic ?

When the friend said (to everyone) he was "going to the police" did no one ask :

1. Why ?
2. What crime exactly are you reporting ?
3. Had you better not first have a word with your sister ?

If the friend has a 'middle aged' sister how old is he ?

I can't believe the police even got involved here. They just seem obsessed with social media bullying and domestics these days. Utter waste of time and public money all if it.

The world gets more mental every day...

[768]

Red Devil said:

It will be ridiculous if this doesn't end up as NFA.

Surely this is the bottom line. No pun intended.

FWIW I too can't see anything illegal here without there being further detail to indicate intent in the email.

[Bigends]

Breadvan72 said:

Porn would not certainly be grossly offensive. Some people are offended by porn, others are not. The provision still requires intent - there is case law to that effect that you have perhaps overlooked.

Your interpretation would prevent anyone ever sending a tsext, and that is not the intent or effect of the legislation. Context is everything and intent is important.

The act states
127Improper use of public electronic communications network
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

No intent indicated here under s.127

[bitchstewie]

dave7108 said:

It was written in a jokey way as in 'check what your sisters doing' with a screen shot attached of her face.

Could I just ask have you actually seen the email?

Only mention it because that doesn't sound "jokey" or "helpful".

[768]

Bigends said:

The act states
127Improper use of public electronic communications network
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

No intent indicated here under s.127

Not as it might be read in plain English, but AIUI (not a lawyer) the tests for what is obscene, for instance, would include intent.

Otherwise you'd be telling us every porn site is illegal?

[InitialDave]

The Spruce goose said:

i;m not sure, if a porno video of a sibling was sent to me , anonymously, then i might be offended by it, i mean its not normal behavior is it? most would just say it on the net, not the actual video.

There is an area between "this is not in any way a problem" and "this is something the police should deal with". I think this situation falls into that (massive) gap.

No, it's not "nice". But the police absolutely have better things to do.

[OddCat]

Bigends said:

The act states
127Improper use of public electronic communications network
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

No intent indicated here under s.127

....so it all comes down to how offensive the material is (and not how offended the recipient may have been which is irrelevant).

I which case plods first action is to review the material and establish whether it is "offensive". Unlikely if it is on a public website.

Sounds like plod have nothing better to do.......

[anonymous-user]

Bigends said:

The act states
127Improper use of public electronic communications network
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

No intent indicated here under s.127

See DPP v Collins [2006] UKHL 40 [2006] 1 WLR 2223.

Summary: The offence under the Communications Act 2003 s.127(1)(a) required proof that a person, who had sent a message by means of a public electronic communications network intended his words to be offensive to those to whom they related or be aware that they might be taken to be so.

[anonymous-user]

its easy to make comments when it is not you, and to know how you would feel in a situation like this is hard to empathise with.

The law is there, the friend took offence, the police are doling there duty, the cps i guess will decide how the law applies in this case. We live in this world we can't pick and choose what laws we agree and disagree with.

[anonymous-user]

OddCat said:

....so it all comes down to how offensive the material is (and not how offended the recipient may have been which is irrelevant).

Your understanding is correct in that the communication need not be received by the intended recipient, but intent to cause offence is a requisite. Intent could in some cases be inferred from the nature of the communication.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 22 October 13:54

[anonymous-user]

768 said:

Bigends said:

...

No intent indicated here under s.127

Not as it might be read in plain English, but AIUI (not a lawyer) the tests for what is obscene, for instance, would include intent.

Otherwise you'd be telling us every porn site is illegal?

The test for obscenity does not depend on intent, and is instead focused on effect. On a separate issue the Communications Act offence does require intent. Bigends is mistaken in suggesting that it does not.

[Escapegoat]

The Spruce goose said:

its easy to make comments when it is not you, and to know how you would feel in a situation like this is hard to empathise with.

The law is there, the friend took offence, the police are doling there duty, the cps i guess will decide how the law applies in this case. We live in this world we can't pick and choose what laws we agree and disagree with.

Agreed. OP has failed to think about how the recipient would feel. Out of the blue, a jokey message saying "see what your sister is up to" arrives. It's sent anonymously. That's in effect the OP's son trying to humiliate the victim. And the subject matter means it's a significant problem. The story that "I was just letting him know" is feeble post hoc justification.

But I think the worst case is probably that he accepts a caution if the victim wants to pursue it.

Incidentally, was his phone/computer seized and investigated? Because there's the rest of the context. (What OP's son said back to the other friends after receiving it, etc.)

[steveo3002]

so its legal to perform naked /sex acts on film , legal to film it , legal to host it online and to watch it , but send someone an email saying look mate its your sister and all hell breaks loose?

sounds like a case of shooting the messenger ?

[dave7108]

yes phone, ipad and pc seized. Everything returned a day later apart from phone which they say they want to give back but may have to end up keeping it due to it having whatsapp installed. Though im not sure what the process is with that - can the police retrieve deleted whatsapp. My son stated the only messages he received in regard to this was from one of the group with check this out and a link to said video.

[4x4Tyke]

Do you eat much custard, or just expect us to eat implausible scenarios?

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

[anonymous-user]

dave7108 said:

can the police retrieve deleted whatsapp.

Yes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/08/01/d...

''But instead of properly deleting messages, the app retains a memory of chats that could be recovered using forensic tools by law enforcement or anyone else with access to the device. ''

I am sure you will, but if the police go ahead i would getting a specialist solicitor in this matters.

[Escapegoat]

steveo3002 said:

so its legal to perform naked /sex acts on film , legal to film it , legal to host it online and to watch it , but send someone an email saying look mate its your sister and all hell breaks loose?

sounds like a case of shooting the messenger ?

It's legal to sell bacon, it's legal to eat bacon, it's legal to buy your friend a bacon butty at the truck stop.

All hell may break loose if you decide to share your bacon by putting rashers on a synagogue's door handles.

(And "I was only letting the rabbi know about bacon's irresistible flavour" is unlikely to be the best defence.)

[Red Devil]

Breadvan72 said:

OddCat said:

....so it all comes down to how offensive the material is (and not how offended the recipient may have been which is irrelevant).

Your understanding is correct in that the communication need not be received by the intended recipient, but intent to cause offence is a requisite. Intent could in some cases be inferred from the nature of the communication.

I am hesitant to disagree with you given your profession, but having read the transcript of the judgment in Collins I don't think intent is a necessary element under Section 127(1)(a).

See paragraph 8 - http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2006/40.html

It seems to me that it depends on whether the video content was 'grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character'.
Paragraph 9 covers that. It is a matter for the Justices to decide as a question of fact. We don't know exactly what the lady was up to...

Intent is relevant to an offence under ths Act - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/secti...

[dave7108]

For clarification it wasnt an actual video sent just a screen shot.