Key Facts
- •BLC was convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment.
- •After release, BLC published online posts criticizing the judge and advocates from his trial.
- •BLC was charged with offences under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988.
- •The trial judge ruled that online posts did not satisfy the 'sending to another person' requirement of the Act.
- •The prosecution appealed the judge's ruling under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
- •The Court of Appeal reversed the judge's ruling, finding his interpretation of section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 to be wrong in law.
Legal Principles
Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 (MCA 1988) has a wide ambit, encompassing electronic communications posted online with intent to cause distress or anxiety.
Malicious Communications Act 1988, section 1
Section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) allows prosecution appeals against rulings at trial, even if not 'terminating' rulings. The prosecution must give notice of appeal and undertake to accept acquittal if the appeal fails.
Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 58
The phrase 'sends to' in the MCA 1988 does not require a focused sending to an individual; it includes sending to a corporation or posting online with the intent that the message will reach the target.
Court of Appeal interpretation of MCA 1988, section 1
Under the MCA 1988, the communication can be an expression of opinion, not just a statement of fact.
Court of Appeal interpretation of MCA 1988, section 1
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal allowed the prosecution's appeal.
The trial judge's interpretation of section 1 of the MCA 1988 was wrong in law. Online postings can constitute an offence under the Act if they meet the criteria of intent and communication.
The trial judge's ruling staying the proceedings was deemed irrelevant due to the prosecution's subsequent compliance with section 58 of the CJA 2003.
The prosecution's actions, while initially flawed due to misunderstanding of section 58, were ultimately rectified through the granted adjournment and subsequent notification of intent to appeal and agreement to an acquittal undertaking.
The trial will proceed before a different judge and in a different Crown Court.
To ensure impartiality and avoid any perception of bias.
Reporting restrictions were partially lifted.
To allow reporting of the judgment while protecting the anonymity of BLC.