Gentlemen of the free-and-easy sort, who plume themselves on being acquainted with a move or two, and being usually equal to the time-of-day, express the wide range of their capacity for adventure by observing that they are good for anything from pitch-and-toss to manslaughter; between which opposite extremes, no doubt, there lies a tolerably wide and comprehensive range of subjects.
Without venturing for Scrooge quite as hardily as this, I don’t mind calling on you to believe that he was ready for a good broad field of strange appearances, and that nothing between a baby and rhinoceros would have astonished him very much.
Now, being prepared for almost anything, he was not by any means prepared for nothing…
Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol
The High Court has decided that it cannot decide the “Twitter Joke Trial” and so has ordered a fresh appeal hearing.
I have written about this at the New Statesman and discussed it in a Without Prejudice legal podcast with Charon QC (I am the one who sounds like a Brummie Dalek). There is also an excellent post at the INFORRM media law blog.
I just want to here make a quick personal comment.
Paul Chambers really is a remarkable and patient chap.
For two years he has put up with a conviction which has ruined his life and which the legal system simply cannot put right easily.
It is a privilege to be his solicitor.
The contrast of his good-natured perseverance with the inadequacies of the litigation process is marked, and reminds me of Simon Singh who had to endure a misconceived and illiberal libel case for two years before an appellate court saw sense.
Some say this case is similarly a disgrace to our legal system, and it is hard to disagree.
And thanks to Paul’s determination to fight the case, we may still end up with a decision which provides for a sensible application of the Communications Act for all users of social media.
You can contribute to Paul’s support fund - I don’t benefit (my legal work is being funded separately) but it covers all Paul’s other expenses and barristers’ fees.
COMMENTS MODERATION
Comments are pre-moderated. No purely anonymous comments will be published; always use a name for ease of reference by other commenters. Other comments published at my absolute discretion.
11 Responses to In praise of Paul Chambers
Leave a Reply
There’s little to say, except to echo your praise of him and add my own hopes that good sense prevails.
I live in NEast England, so am well acquainted with STC “Mr Monkey” twitter case. I am amazed that those who posted the alleged false, unpleasant, damaging, sometimes threatening posts on that site have never been the subject of a S127 investigation by local Police, yet Paul has had his life turned upside down by a throwaway as you rightly describe “joke twitter”. Have you ever looked in any detail at the ” Mr M” case, currently being pursued through the Caifornian Courts as a civil matter by STC.
Be careful what you don’t tweet, I was prosecuted Sect 2 non violent harassment for creating & promoting my website http://www.policeexpenses.co.uk in court City London Police Counter Terrorism Directorate claimed I had sent 1000′s of tweets about an extra marital affair, this became the media headlines. I have never not once tweeted about the affair, under oath the police conceded that I had not, they had never seen any evidence to suggest that I had however they believed it was my intention too.
Moral of the story …tweeting should have a health warning
Ian Puddick
Whenever I think of HHJ Jacqueline Davies describing him as a man “formerly of good character” I cringe.
I started following Paul on twitter after this all started and he is a funny, interesting and ultimately very ‘normal’ person which, considering how hard the legal system has tried to completely ruin his life through its frightening ignorance of modern social media or the vernacular of the ordinary man, is astounding.
All I can hope is that eventually a judge with common sense, something of which there seems to be precious little in the prosecution service, will overturn this ridiculous bastardisation of law that existed for completely reasons anyway.
It was nothing more than a careless tweet that should have resulted in a slap on the wrist and a “use your brain next time, son” from a local policeman. It embarrasses this country that it has been taken so seriously by so many people who are in the positions they are!
I read that a woman who joked on Facebook that she wanted to extinguish the Olympic flame with a water pistol as it passed through her village has received a police caution. This raises several points – what crime had she committed a) by her comment on Facebook, b) by the act itself had she carried it out. On can see b) being a possible ‘public order’ offence but is a) sufficient to be an intention to commit a crime?
On Radio 5 Live at about 15.10 hours, the anchorman read out a tweet/text/email from a listener that said,
“Those that protest the jubilee celebrations are traitors and should be executed”.
This surely is just as menacing, possibly more so, than anything Paul Chambers said in his tweet. I have lodged a written complaint with Radio 5 Live asking them
a) to broadcast an apology for any alarm that may have been caused by the communication;
b) to filter out any future communications with menacing content so as to avoid causing future alarm or distress;
c) to forward the offending communication to the Police for investigation and possible prosecution
I don’t really want a prosecution to proceed but what is good for Paul Chambers is surely good for an ardent supporter of the Monarchy, isn’t it?
I am looking forward to the BBC’s response which I suspect will say that the communication was intended to be light hearted and that I am taking it out of context. (!)
If so, I shall file a complaint directly to the Police myself. Perhaps the response of the authorities in this matter could constitute evidence of the inconsistent, arbitrary treatment that Paul Chambers has received at the hands of the judicial system?
Sorry, I omitted the date of the broadcast from my post. It was 3 June 2012.
Here is the transcript of my complaint:
Complaint Summary:
Broadcast of a menacing threat
Full Complaint:
On R5 Live yesterday (3 June 2012) between 1500 and 1530 hours the anchorman, who I believe was Richard Bacon, read out a text/email he had received in relation to the Diamond Jubilee. The contents of the text, which Richard read out and which R5 Live broadcast, was as follows, “Those protesting against the Jubilee celebrations are traitors and should be executed”. This may not be an exact verbatim record of what was said but it is substantively absolutely accurate. I am very concerned about such a message being broadcast over the airwaves. It is menacing and may well cause members of the public to feel menaced. You will doubtless be aware of the “Twitter Joke Trial” where a young man was found guilty of issuing a menacing statement over electronic medium (Twitter). Comparing the Twitter Joke case with the instance I have brought to your attention above reveals that the 2 cases are substantively very similar. I believe Radio 5 Live should broadcast an apology for this lapse of judgement, and at the same time should exhort its listeners to refrain from making such comments. I also believe this email/text/tweet, the subject of this complaint, should be forwarded to the Police so as to achieve parity of treatment between the 2 cases. I very much hope that Radio 5 Live will exercise responsibility in future and filter out texts/tweets and emails which may cause unnecessary alarm, so that they are not broadcast.
———-
Thank you again for contacting us.
BBC Complaints
The comment that republican protestors should be executed is certainly unpleasant but can hardly be regarded as a threat since it expresses an opinion rather than an intention. If the tweet had read, ‘I want to shoot the lot of them’, then yes, it might be regarded as menacing.
@Anna
Thanks for your response which is very crisp and clear and makes good sense.
So Paul Chambers would have escaped prosecution had he tweeted, “Robin Hood, you have a week and a bit to get your s**t together or else the airport should be blown sky high”.
That was the gist of his tweet and we, including the Judiciary, all know this. We are not all afflicted with Asperger’s syndrome, a condition that causes us to interpret literally and out of context. It seems to me he has been convicted of a criminal offence for poor phraseology, not for issuing a credible threat.