I have paid some attention to this one

Succinctly:

? He is a t**t for doing it

? The Special Branch at the airport were t**ts for referring it on to Doncaster Police after sitting on it for TWO DAYS (so they obviously weren?t really concerned with it as a threat ... not surprising when the airport station manager had already classified it as a ?non-credible threat?)

? Doncaster Police were t**ts for (a) arresting him under suspicion of making a bomb hoax threat under the 1977 act (obviously it wasn't) and arresting him at work was incredibly heavy handed and (b) for then passing it to the CPS after they concluded after questioning him that there was no evidence of anything other than that he had been a t**t

? The CPS were clever by switching the charge to s127 of the Telecommunications Act 2003, since that gets away from the issue about whether he intended to make someone believe there was a bomb (the 1977 act offence). However, they are t**ts for insisting on a trial instead of giving him a caution, and they are t**ts for trying to argue that this was a strict liability offence (ie that he didn't have to THINK it was a menacing message, it was enough that it WAS menacing - there is clear House of Lords to the contrary)

? His original lawyers are t**ts for telling him to plead guilty (ie not to contest the question of whether intention is a necessary ingredient of the 2003 act)

? The Mags were sensible for allowing him to change his plea

? It then becomes a question of fact as to whether (a) the message was in fact menacing; and (b) whether he intended it to BE menacing. Both elements have to be proved. If I had been sitting I suspect I would have found that it was neither, though I feel more confident that I would have found he did not INTEND it to be menacing than that it was NOT menacing. Hard to be sure without hearing the evidence. The fact that he has gone down twice smells to me of spineless tribunals fearing the tabloid press.

? There is also a tedious legal issue about whether a tweet is a ?message? within the 2003 Act (I think it is).

So basically, there are a lot of t**ts involved in this case, plus one smart CPS lawyer

Posted By: Old Git, Nov 12, 11:16:51