CPS News Brief

Points for discussion for social media roundtables

Following the Director of Public Prosecution’s previous announcement of the CPS's plans to hold a series of roundtables to discuss the prosecution of cases involving social media, the first of these events will take place on Monday 8 October.

Points for discussion are as follows:

1. What is the balance that should be struck between free speech and the application of the criminal law?

Is it the business of the police and prosecutors to protect the sensibilities of individuals or groups against what many people would consider to be bad taste? Simply because the view expressed is controversial or unpopular and may cause offense is not in itself enough for criminal charges.

2. Is it agreed that Parliament set the threshold in the criminal law high? The law talks about a criminal offence being committed if a message is “grossly offensive” or of a “menacing character”.

Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 is concerned with “improper use of public communications network” and makes it an offence if a person “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”.

It is also an offence if a person “for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he... sends .. a message that he knows to be false”.

3. When considering whether a prosecution is in the public interest, should one or more of the following make a prosecution more likely? 

• the message is part of a campaign of harassment against an individual or group
• the message is a threat against the life or wellbeing of the recipient and/or the a member of the recipient's family or other loved ones. (Should recipient be “individual”?)
• the message, on an objective consideration, is malicious
• the message is an incitement to hatred on grounds of race, religion, disability, or sexual orientation (and ethnic or national origin?)
• the message causes considerable distress to the recipient and/or their family or loved ones.

Are there any other relevant considerations?

4. When considering whether a prosecution is in the public interest, should one or more of the following make a prosecution less likely? 

• the message is a one-off incident
• the message is intended to be humorous 
• the message is not directed at a specific individual (or group?)
• the message was not intended to become public or become known to the individual who is the subject of the message
• the sender of the message has expressed genuine remorse
• the individual (or individual’s family), subject to the message, is not distressed by the message.

Are there any other relevant considerations?

5. Where should the law be directed if a message is retweeted or resent by another without the knowledge of the initial sender or against their wishes?

6. Should police and prosecutors become involved if the message is sent from outside the UK to an individual living here? Or from the UK to an individual living outside the UK?

7. To what extent are messages being sent by social media an issue for the social media industry rather than the criminal law? Should the industry be active in moderating its sites?

Builder jailed for manslaughter of 3-year-old Meg Burgess

George Collier was today sentenced to two years’ imprisonment over the death of three-year-old Meg Burgess, who died after a wall built by Mr Collier collapsed on top of her.

The jury found Mr Collier guilty of gross negligence manslaughter. His company, Parcol Developments Ltd, based in Conwy, previously pleaded guilty to failure to discharge a duty under Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at work Act 1974 on 7 December 2011.

Rosemary Ainslie, lawyer for the CPS Special Crime division, said:

“This was a tragic case, in which a young girl lost her life.

“Mr Collier was responsible for the design and construction of the wall but did not make sure it was built to safe standards, nor did he prevent members of the public from walking past it, with terrible consequences.

“The jury has found Mr Collier guilty of gross negligence manslaughter and his conviction should act not only as a reminder of the dangers of sub-standard building work but also of the consequences for those who carry it out.

“I extend my deepest sympathies to the family of young Meg Burgess.”

Airline pilot to be prosecuted for duty evasion on cigarettes and alcohol

Lisa Rose, specialist prosecutor for the CPS Central Fraud Division said:

“Following an investigation by HM Revenue and Customs, I have authorised charges against Andrew Dougall Creelman for the alleged fraudulent evasion of duty payable on alcohol and cigarettes.

“Andrew Creelman will face two counts contrary to Section 170(2)(a) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. The allegation is that between 16 October 2010 and 30 December 2011, Andrew Creelman was knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of chargeable duty on excise goods. One count relates to 16,400 king size filter cigarettes and the second count to 20 litres of spirits.

“The loss to the public revenue is estimated to be in excess of £3,400.

“This decision to prosecute was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. I have determined that there is a realistic prospect of conviction and a prosecution is in the public interest.

“He has been served with summons and will appear before City of London Magistrates’ Court on 23 October 2012.

“Andrew Creelman has the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that nothing should be reported which could prejudice this trial."

DPP refuses to consent to private prosecution of Babar Ahmad and Syed Ahsan for terrorism offences

Statement from Keir Starmer QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions:

"On 7 September 2012, I received a request from those representing Mr Karl Watkin for my consent for him to bring a private prosecution against Babar Ahmad and Syed Ahsan for a number of offences under the Terrorism Act 2000. I also received copies of the documents upon which Mr Watkin proposes to rely in support of that prosecution.

"My consent to the offences in question can only be given with the permission of the Attorney General and I have therefore consulted him before arriving at my decision.

"When considering whether to give consent, I am required to follow the Code for Crown Prosecutors. I therefore have to consider whether there is sufficient evidence, which is both admissible and reliable, to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and, if so, I have to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.

"The material provided to me in support of the proposed private prosecution has been carefully considered by a specialist lawyer in the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division. The same material has also been considered by my Principal Legal Advisor, Alison Levitt QC.

"The material comprises two statements and a number of documents. The two statements purport to have been signed by Mr Ahmad and Mr Ahsan themselves but they are very short, lack any meaningful detail and do not provide any real support for a prosecution.

"Most of the documents provided appear to have been printed off from websites. As they stand, they are probably inadmissible in evidence but, in any event, they do not provide the necessary links between Mr Ahmad and Mr Ahsan and the charges that Mr Watkin proposes to bring under the Terrorism Act 2000. Any prosecution on such material alone would be bound to fail.

"The letter seeking my consent to the private prosecution of Mr Ahmad and Mr Ahsan also makes reference to material held by the Metropolitan Police Service and to material provided by the United States of America and suggests that this material might be of use in the proposed private prosecution. Although not strictly required to do so for the purpose of dealing with Mr Watkin’s request for consent to a private prosecution, I will address both of these suggestions.

"So far as any material held by the police is concerned, in 2004 only a small number of documents relating to Mr Ahmad were submitted to the CPS for advice (there has never been a domestic investigation into Mr Ahsan). However, in the past few months the Metropolitan Police Service has reviewed its position in relation to Mr Ahmad following separate correspondence between the CPS and solicitors acting for Mr Ahmad and Mr Ahsan. The review by the Metropolitan Police Service included consideration of information that Saajid Badat provided prior to signing an agreement with the CPS under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

"I therefore asked that enquiries be made of the Metropolitan Police Service to ascertain whether, as a result of the recent review, the police intended to send further documents or any other material to the CPS to consider in Mr Ahmad’s case. Had more documents or material been supplied, the CPS would have considered that material alongside the material supplied in support of the proposed private prosecution. However, I have received written confirmation that the Metropolitan Police Service do not intend to refer any further documents or other material to the CPS for consideration.

"So far as the material provided by the United States of America is concerned, any suggestion that it could be used in support of a prosecution in England and Wales is misconceived. That material was provided in accordance with the requirements of the Extradition Act 2003 solely for use in the extradition proceedings, which relate to the wider charges alleged in that jurisdiction. The public summary of the U.S. indictment provided by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates that Mr Ahmad and Mr Ahsan are charged with:

“… providing material support of terrorism, conspiring to kill U.S. nationals, and money laundering. It is alleged that Ahmad and Ahsan, through an entity known as “Azzam Publications,” were members of a group that provided material support to the Taliban and the Chechen Mujahideen through various means, including the administration and operation of various web sites promoting violent jihad. The Azzam Publications websites, including, e.g., Azzam.com and Qoqaz.net, were hosted for a period of time through the services of a web-hosting company located in Connecticut. The indictment alleges that the defendants, using both cyberspace and real-world efforts, assisted the Taliban and the Chechen Mujahideen through money laundering, as well as by providing funds, military equipment, communication equipment, lodging, training, expert advice and assistance, facilities, personnel, transportation and other supplies, with the knowledge and intent that such conduct would support the military activities of these and associated groups. The indictment also alleges that, during a search of Ahmad’s residence in the United Kingdom in December 2003, Ahmad was found in the possession of an electronic document containing what were previously classified plans regarding the makeup, advance movements and mission of a United States Naval battle group as it was transiting from California to its deployment in the Middle East. The document discussed the battle group’s perceived vulnerability to terrorist attack.”

"The underlying evidence in support of these alleged offences is in the possession of the USA.

"In the circumstances, I have refused to give my consent to Mr Watkin to bring a private prosecution against Mr Ahmad and Mr Ahsan for offences under the Terrorism Act 2000."