Key Facts
- •Appeal against convictions of two Metropolitan Police officers (Appellants) for improperly using a public electronic communications network under section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003.
- •Officers sent grossly offensive, racist, misogynistic, sexist, homophobic, and disablist messages within a private WhatsApp group.
- •Messages were considered 'dark humor' by the officers but deemed grossly offensive by the court.
- •Recipients of the messages did not find them offensive.
- •Messages were discovered following an unrelated criminal investigation.
- •Appellants argued that section 127(1) does not apply to private consensual messaging.
- •Appellants also challenged their 12-week prison sentences.
Legal Principles
The purpose of section 127(1) is to prohibit the improper use of public electronic communications networks, not to protect individuals from receiving offensive messages.
R v Collins [2006] UKHL 40
The offence under section 127(1)(a) is complete upon sending the message, regardless of whether it is received or causes offence.
R v Collins [2006] UKHL 40
To determine if a message is 'grossly offensive', the court applies the standards of an open and just multi-racial society, considering context and relevant circumstances.
R v Collins [2006] UKHL 40
Mens rea for section 127(1)(a) requires the defendant to intend to insult those to whom the message relates or be aware of the risk of doing so.
R v Collins [2006] UKHL 40
Conviction under section 127(1) must be proportionate to Convention rights (Articles 8 and 10 ECHR).
Various cases, including Connolly, Chambers, Scottow, and Casserly.
A proportionality assessment must consider whether the interference with Convention rights corresponds to a pressing social need and is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
Casserly [2024] EWCA Crim 25
Outcomes
Appeals against conviction dismissed.
The court found the messages were objectively grossly offensive, the actus reus was satisfied, and the mens rea was established through recklessness.
Judicial review applications regarding sentence refused.
The court upheld the 12-week prison sentences, emphasizing the significant societal harm caused by the officers' actions and the need for deterrence.