Paul Chambers Basic Case Study (Summary)

Paul Chambers threatening airport tweet (May 2010-July 2012)

·         Paul Chambers, 28, of Northern Ireland, was found guilty in May 2010 of sending a "menacing electronic communication" via twitter. Case was taken to High Court in London

"Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

-       Courts stated that the message intended/did create fear/apprehension in those who read it and therefore can be deemed menacing and criminal

-       This sparked attention from supporters of Paul Chambers, stating that the law needed to catch up, and accommodate irony and wit

Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, Mr Justice Owen and Mr Justice Griffith Williams, said: "If the person or persons who receive or read it, (the message) or may reasonably be expected to receive, or read it, would brush it aside as a silly joke, or a joke in bad taste, or empty bombastic or ridiculous banter, then it would be a contradiction in terms to describe it as a message of a menacing character."

·         Chambers appealed, believing he should not have been fined £385:

-First appeal was dismissed by a crown court judge in November 2010, who said the electronic communication was "clearly menacing" and that airport staff were sufficiently concerned to report it.

John Cooper QC highlighted to the judges it was obvious the tweet was a joke and it was sent by someone who did not hide his identity. It is also relevant to consider the tweet was discovered five days after it was posted, when Paul had flown, making it an empty threat.

“It was certainly not sent in the context of terrorism and it was wrong for the crown court to make such an association” Cooper.

Paul Chambers' QC told the High Court you can't define a "menacing threat" - but "you know it when you see it."

Did those who read the Tweet regard it as a joke or a bomb threat?

His lawyers argue the context of the words are important and that the judges should take into account where and how they appeared on his Twitter timeline.

OPPOSING ARGUMENT: The case to uphold the conviction is simple: It doesn't matter if Mr Chambers' friends chortled as they read his tweet as a joke. It became a crime because anyone at all, of reasonable state of mind, could regard it as a genuine threat.

Mr Cooper said for a message to be considered menacing, the person sending the message must intend to threaten the recipient and it has to contain a credible threat.

During the hearing, Mr Cooper was challenged by one of the judges on whether there was a genuine freedom of speech argument. The QC said that freedom of speech was not just there to protect the righteous but the unpleasant too.

·         Media Attention:

-Comedian Stephen Fry, said it was "very important" for freedom of speech.

-Comedian Al Murray "At worst, the tweet was offensive."

·         Conclusion:

-The Crown Prosecution Service said it would not appeal against the judgement. Paul Chambers wasn't convicted.