(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.
(2)A
person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance,
inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a)sends
by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows
to be false,
(b)causes
such a message to be sent; or
(c)persistently
makes use of a public electronic communications network.
(3)A
person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary
conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine
not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(4)Subsections
(1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a
programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).
This is currently a summary only offence with
convictions as follows:-
Between 25/07/2003 and
31/12/2011 5,316 people were found
guilty at magistrates` courts in England and Wales of offences under section
127. These figures include obscene telephone calls and text messages as
well as internet-based communications. The figures available cannot
distinguish between communications to an individual (such as a phone call) or
the public (such as a Twitter post).[3]
Section 127 cases, England and Wales
|
|||||||||||
2003
|
2004
|
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013
|
|
Proceeded against
|
0
|
214
|
355
|
550
|
680
|
872
|
126
|
1511
|
(2000+)[4]
|
?
|
2000[5]
|
Found guilty
|
143
|
260
|
377
|
498
|
693
|
873
|
1186
|
1286 (1309)
|
1423
|
?
|
|
Conviction ratio %
|
67
|
73
|
69
|
73
|
79
|
78
|
78
|
(<64)
|
?
|
?
|
|
In
simple language Section 127 provides that it is an offence (and thereby means
that a person can be arrested, charged, convicted, sentenced, and obtain a criminal
record) if a person sends "a message or other matter" which is
"grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character"
by means of a "public electronic communications network".
Our esteemed Chris Grayling has this weekend
secured his desired headlines by announcing changes to the above Act insofar as
it shall become an either way offence with a maximum term of imprisonment
increased from the current six months to two years. Like much criminal legislation the maximum
sentence for any offence is intended as much as a deterrent to the committing
of that offence as a punishment. IMHO it
is not difficult to conclude that this increase in sentencing availability is
based not upon logical understanding of the behaviour involved and the
requirement to modify that of possible offenders but to pander to what he
assumes is public prejudice aroused by a few particularly nasty cases. In
2012 under the Section only 201 offenders received custodial sentences. If the current sentencing guidelines are not
employed to the maximum what changes are to be expected? If that small number jailed for the offence
were to be replicated when the new maximum is available are we to assume that Crown Court
judges will step up their punishment?
Will juries be as ready to convict with two year jail terms on the
horizon as magistrates do now at a highly efficient rate of around 70%? And most significantly will the possibility
of conviction at Crown Court deter those possible offenders from making their
sometimes odious on line remarks as opposed to the current situation, which is
so rarely warranted, of six months
maximum at the magistrates` court. “I
hae ma doots”, as Boswell said to Dr. Johnson.
No comments:
Post a Comment