David Allen Green

A critical and liberal look at law and policy

The High Court is unable to agree on Twitter Joke Trial appeal

A fresh appeal hearing is ordered before three appeal judges as the case goes on.

By David Allen Green Published 28 May 2012 11:33

The High Court is unable to agree on Twitter Joke Trial appeal

The Royal Courts of Justice. Photo: Getty Images

The two-judge Divisional Court of the High Court has not been able to come to an agreed decision on the “Twitter Joke Trial” appeal and so has ordered a new hearing before three judges.

On 8 February Lord Justice Gross and Mr Justice Irwin heard the appeal by case stated of Paul Chambers against his conviction by Doncaster Magistrates’ Court under section 127(1) of the Communications Act for sending a “menacing” communication. The message in question was a tweet expressing Chambers’ jokey exasperation at Robin Hood Airport being closed.

There is no new date set yet for the hearing. A split divisional court is exceptional, and it appears that this may be only the second time it has happened this century.

Prominent supporters of the campaign in support of Chambers include Stephen Fry, Graham Linehan, and Al Murray. There is a support fund for legal fees of barristers and the many other expenses of Chambers in fighting the case.

David Allen Green is the New Statesman’s legal correspondent and is acting for Paul Chambers in the appeal. His legal work for Paul Chambers is being funded separately from the support fund.

Tags: twitter

More from David Allen Green

View the discussion thread.

8 comments

Tue, 2012-06-05 22:17 — sashasasf (not verified)

practikstone.com.ua Kitchen table-tops can be made of several materials, have various width and height, and also various indicators of wear resistance. The most reliable and not choosy it is possible to call kitchen table-tops from an artificial stone which can serve rather long term and won't lose the attractive appearance. The kitchen table-top executed from a stone, which price can differ depending on the size, the producer and some other parameters, can have various color and the invoice that will allow to pick up without effort the most optimum for any interior option

Mon, 2012-06-04 10:40 — Spiritof1415 (not verified)

Justice delayed is Justice denied.

This has gone on too long and the judiciary need a kick up the backside. Ps I mean this in a metaphorical manner not literally, just making sure!

Wed, 2012-05-30 15:54 — Boom (not verified)

I've always thought it's idiotic for judges to sit in even numbers. Why do they do it? (Serious question.)

Wed, 2012-05-30 12:51 — Andybbn (not verified)

It is extremely worrying that for the 3rd time running a judge agrees with the original case put forward by the prosecution and feels that this is a perfectly legitimate use of the communications act. Do these people live in the real world? As one guy notes above, any one of us could find ourselves in the position of Paul Chambers. I am ready to bet that every single person who has ever used the internet will have sent a message that could be considered threatening or abusive by somebody out there.

Mon, 2012-05-28 16:33 — Korman (not verified)

So, the judges can't agree, and want a fresh trial. But isn't there a Court cost for an appeal? Will this now be refunded?

Mon, 2012-05-28 15:23 — Mark Scorah (not verified)

Sluice the original trial or the appeal? the original trial was in no one's interest. the appeal is in everybody's interest, if jokes (albeit not overly funny ones) are taken as menacing then much of what is said on the internet could be construed as menacing and leave the person who wrote it at risk of being charged under the communications act

Mon, 2012-05-28 13:26 — Mark Phillips (not verified)

This at least confirms that the matter is by no means straightforward in the sense of it being a crime under the Communications Act. Now all they have to do is realise that 'content' and 'message' are two different things, as David succinctly communicated above, and that indeed the Communications Act is also supposed to be read with the same degree of sensible interpretation.

You now have at least ONE judge on your side, Paul, so that IS progress.