Malicious email / police involved
Discussion
dave7108 said:
For clarification it wasnt an actual video sent just a screen shot.
Have you seen the email? He's really not done himself any favours has he?Anonymous email
Jokey tone
Just a screenshot of the video.
Beginning to sound like it was sent (maybe not maliciously) with the intent to cause offence rather than to highlight this to his 'mate' to save further embarrassment.
Red Devil said:
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...
Butter Face said:
Beginning to sound like it was sent (maybe not maliciously) with the intent to cause offence rather than to highlight this to his 'mate' to save further embarrassment.
This ^^OP - you've now pretty much explained the story in a way that implies he sent an anonymous email taking the piss, rather than trying to help in any way.
Genuine question: do you believe your son's story?
Red Devil said:
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...
Lord Bingham said:
Mr Perry, for the Director, relying by analogy on section 6(4) of the Public Order Act 1986, suggested that the defendant must intend his words to be grossly offensive to those to whom they relate, or be aware that they may be taken to be so.
...
Parliament cannot have intended to criminalise the conduct of a person using language which is, for reasons unknown to him, grossly offensive to those to whom it relates, or which may even be thought, however wrongly, to represent a polite or acceptable usage. On the other hand, a culpable state of mind will ordinarily be found where a message is couched in terms showing an intention to insult those to whom the message relates or giving rise to the inference that a risk of doing so must have been recognised by the sender. The same will be true where facts known to the sender of a message about an intended recipient render the message peculiarly offensive to that recipient, or likely to be so, whether or not the message in fact reaches the recipient. I would accept Mr Perry's submission.
...
Parliament cannot have intended to criminalise the conduct of a person using language which is, for reasons unknown to him, grossly offensive to those to whom it relates, or which may even be thought, however wrongly, to represent a polite or acceptable usage. On the other hand, a culpable state of mind will ordinarily be found where a message is couched in terms showing an intention to insult those to whom the message relates or giving rise to the inference that a risk of doing so must have been recognised by the sender. The same will be true where facts known to the sender of a message about an intended recipient render the message peculiarly offensive to that recipient, or likely to be so, whether or not the message in fact reaches the recipient. I would accept Mr Perry's submission.
Breadvan72 said:
Bigends said:
My thoughts too
That makes you just as wrong as Red Devil. I know that the PH thing is to hang on and never concede a mistake, but you made a mistake.I add that Lord Carswell said -
"I respectfully agree with the conclusion expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Bingham of Cornhill in paragraph 11 of his opinion that it must be proved that the respondent intended his words to be offensive to those to whom they related or be aware that they may be taken to be so."
The other Law Lords agreed variously with Bingham and/or Carswell.
"I respectfully agree with the conclusion expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Bingham of Cornhill in paragraph 11 of his opinion that it must be proved that the respondent intended his words to be offensive to those to whom they related or be aware that they may be taken to be so."
The other Law Lords agreed variously with Bingham and/or Carswell.
Bigends said:
Breadvan72 said:
Bigends said:
My thoughts too
That makes you just as wrong as Red Devil. I know that the PH thing is to hang on and never concede a mistake, but you made a mistake.Lord Bingham again, refrerring to a fundamental principle:-
"It is pertinent to recall Lord Reid's observations in Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132, 148:
'Our first duty is to consider the words of the Act: if they show a clear intention to create an absolute offence that is an end of the matter. But such cases are very rare. Sometimes the words of the section which creates a particular offence make it clear that mens rea is required in one form or another. Such cases are quite frequent. But in a very large number of cases there is no clear indication either way. In such cases there has for centuries been a presumption that Parliament did not intend to make criminals of persons who were in no way blameworthy in what they did. That means that whenever a section is silent as to mens rea there is a presumption that, in order to give effect to the will of Parliament, we must read in words appropriate to require mens rea.' "
I add for those unfamiliar with the terminology that "mens rea" is the Latin term used in criminal law when discussing the mental element of a crime. Mens rea is always required save in exceptional cases where Parliament intends the contrary. Speeding is an example of an offence that requires no mens rea.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 22 October 16:31
Breadvan72 said:
Did you stop reading at paragraph 9 (which isn't about intent) and miss the bits relevant to intent?
Surprising as it may seem, no, I got much further than that. 
How then to explain the comments of Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (in particular paragraph 26).
In short, for liability to arise under section 1(1), the sender of the grossly offensive message must intend it to cause distress or anxiety to its immediate or eventual recipient. Not so under section 127(1)(a): the very act of sending the message over the public communications network (ordinarily the public telephone system) constitutes the offence even if it was being communicated to someone who the sender knew would not be in any way offended or distressed by it.
I'm not claiming any superior knowledge. I'm genuinely confused. He appears to be saying that the only issue is whether or not the message is grossly offensive (judged by the ordinary standards of society at the time: which can change as the Lady Chatterley's Lover case famously demonstrated).
Could I escape a charge under 127(1)(a) simply by arguing that I didn't think the message was grossly offensive and that I had no intention of causing distress to the recipient?
What am I missing here?
dave7108 said:
We had a knock on the door yesterday from a police officer. I accompanied my son to the station, he is 20 and hasnt been in trouble with the police before.
Around a year ago a video had been circulating of a friends sister doing various things on a webcam site.
This video then got found by one of my sons friends and was passed about. My son was sent it and thought his friend (whose sister was in the video) deserved to know what was going on. He didnt want to get involved directly but felt this needed taking down so sent. In hindsight he should of just told him as this has now been reported for malicious communication.
The police were brilliant and once he explained that he had sent it to him to let him know and it wasnt malicious they released him. He phoned them today for an update and they said the receiver of the email (his friend) wants to press charges.
What would the likely outcome of this be?
If it's about intent, wouldn't be clear from the content and tone of the Email that your son was trying to help?Around a year ago a video had been circulating of a friends sister doing various things on a webcam site.
This video then got found by one of my sons friends and was passed about. My son was sent it and thought his friend (whose sister was in the video) deserved to know what was going on. He didnt want to get involved directly but felt this needed taking down so sent. In hindsight he should of just told him as this has now been reported for malicious communication.
The police were brilliant and once he explained that he had sent it to him to let him know and it wasnt malicious they released him. He phoned them today for an update and they said the receiver of the email (his friend) wants to press charges.
What would the likely outcome of this be?
How would the brother wishing to pursue charges feel if your son was made aware of the video and then didn't mention it to his friend, the brother of the woman in the video?
What's the brother's motivation in pushing for charges, and pushing for charges now approximately a year after the event?
I've not read any other replies, and just seen Breadvan72's about intent. I've also not seen the Email.
Bigends said:
Breadvan72 said:
Bigends said:
My thoughts too
That makes you just as wrong as Red Devil. I know that the PH thing is to hang on and never concede a mistake, but you made a mistake.(You gotta love these PH moots)
dave7108 said:
yes police had it printed out.
I think where a few of us are struggling is that you seem a bit economical over what the email said."Hey mate, don't want to use my real address as I know you but I thought you may need to know that your sister is on Pornhub at this address www... and you might want to get it removed"
is a bit different from
"Check this screengrab out, never knew she was such a dirty little slapper"
You see the difference I'd hope.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff