COMMUNICATIONS ACT (2003) s.127; MAXIMUM SENTENCE TO INCREASE TO 2 YEARS

s.127

Improper 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.

(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.

INTERPRETERS IN COURT//M.O.J. ANALYSIS

The Ministry of Justice has today published statistics extolling Capita plc`s efforts to satisfy the critics of its interpreters` contract  insofar as its apparent failures to provide a quality service to courts and tribunals.  It is obvious to all that a statistical analysis of any procedure depends 100% upon the information supplied to the analysers  who conduct the analysis.  My own personal experience informs me that that is where the rosy picture painted at Petty France originates.  I would argue that court officers through a mixture of under reporting for a variety of reasons and ineptitude do not report in full the true extent of failures to attend.  As far as seeking locally sourced replacements; by the time which has elapsed since a failure to attend has been accepted or “confirmed”  a decision has been made to adjourn proceedings or no local substitute is available. 

            Any fly on the wall statisticians attending a magistrates` court for a couple of weeks  with access to the retiring room  would soon become acquainted with the lack of management.  It is to their credit that the majority of legal advisors ,  who are privy to this maladministration,  by their fortitude in this situation   keep the system tottering along with the ever sympathetic lay benches in support. 

NOT SURE OF NOT PROVED

Those associated with the Scottish legal system have generally been proud of its efficiency and fair treatment of defendants.  Indeed along with education it was cited often during the referendum campaign as symbolic of the country`s status as  an independent  nation within the United Kingdom.  With the recent amalgamation of the separate police forces in Scotland into a unified command;  Police Scotland, there has now been established an expert group to examine the ramifications of abolishing “corroboration” in the courts.  The most widespread example is that two witnesses not excluding police officers  are required to give evidence against a defendant whereas a single witness is sufficient in the other parts of the U.K.  There are also going to be questions as to changing the number of jurors and the majority needed to convict.  All these proposals are, according to the arguments,  to safeguard the innocent until proved guilty concept of our justice system.  It seems strange therefore  if  the Herald report is comprehensive  that that most unusual of all processes in Scots law, the verdict of “not proven” ,    is not up for consideration.  On the surface that verdict alone seems calculated to ensure that any shadow of doubt in the prosecution case  is firmly placed in favour of the defendant.

JEREMIAH J.P.

Once again the best brains at HMCTS seem to be trying to stand up straight with their knickers rather twisted.  One would have thought that after the debacle of the contract for interpreters which revealed unbelievable inefficiency and arrogance in that organisation more mundane matters such as managing rotas would be handled with at least an impression of best practice.  It can arguably be the case that correct management of a rota system for the effective functioning of the country`s magistrates` courts is a prime if not the prime objective of a system which has  this year been forced from being a  local function to a national one on the civil service reasoning that bigger is always better.

Our bench prior to 2012 had about 260 members and after amalgamation with a further two local benches that increased by about 100 or so.  During that earlier time period one rather overworked but extremely efficient person did her very level best to ensure there were three person benches for every court having used a simple computer based system every six months to produce a rota for that purpose. When faced with short handed benches she knew who to contact for short notice additional last minute sittings; namely those who had indicated their general availability on the rota request form.  Late in 2012 she left work  for personal reasons and was replaced by two novices who were instructed to immediately institute an annual rota and to offer the whole new bench the opportunity to fill last minute requirements.  The result was obvious to anybody with an ounce of common sense.  Offers to fill last minute vacancies were left unconfirmed until just a few days prior to required dates resulting in an enormous increase in two person benches and a reduced offering from  those whose diaries demanded a more efficient service.  Whilst the novices are now experienced in their task it is only this year end with our yet to be published rota that it will be for a six month period only as it was previously.  This should assist members in forecasting more accurately their anticipated availability.  But we are still suffering from last minute court cancellations and paradoxically last minute pleas for assistance in constituting benches of three even although our enlarged bench now has the same number of J.P.s as our original bench of 2011.   The eagerly awaited rota for January- June 2015 will, we have been informed, be full of the latest bells and whistles. It will comprise,  in addition to regular allocated sittings,  mentored sittings, appraised sittings, crown court sittings besides the expected mix of sex and ethnic diversity.  However if increasing numbers of colleagues continue to offer only the minimum number of sittings or not many more I cannot foresee that  2015 will be much different from 2014 in numbers of cancelled courts, cancelled sittings, two person benches and last minute requests to make up properly constituted benches. 

Just call me J.J.P..............Jeremiah the Justice of the Peace.