Chambers v DPP
[2012] EWHC 2157 (Admin)
Ratio Decidendi
A joke tweet threatening to blow up an airport was not 'menacing' within the meaning of s.127(1)(a) Communications Act 2003. The test is whether a reasonable person would regard the message as a genuine threat. Context, including the medium of communication (Twitter), is relevant.
Ffeithiau
Paul Chambers tweeted: '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!' — after his flight was cancelled due to snow. He was prosecuted under s.127(1)(a) Communications Act 2003 for sending a menacing message via a public electronic communications network.
Crynodeb o'r dyfarniad
The Divisional Court (Lord Judge CJ) allowed the appeal. The tweet was a joke, albeit a tasteless one. A reasonable person would not have regarded it as a genuine threat. The court held that s.127(1)(a) requires the message to be of a 'menacing character' — this is an objective test, judged in context. Satirical, ironic, or humorous intent is relevant to whether a message is truly menacing.
Dyfyniadau allweddol
"A message which does not create fear or apprehension in those to whom it is communicated, or who may reasonably be expected to see it, falls outside this provision."
— Lord Judge CJ
Triniaeth ddilynol
The 'Twitter Joke Trial' became a landmark case on the limits of criminalising online speech. The Online Safety Act 2023 later created new, more nuanced offences for harmful online communications.