Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Conspiring to mislead the House.

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby atticus » Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:32 pm

s1(1) Malicious Communiactions Act 1988 wrote:Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety.
Any person who sends to another person—
(a)a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys—
(i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii)a threat; or
(iii)information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b)any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature, is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.


I have highlighted in red the elements which may be difficult to prove.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20295
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:13 pm

atticus wrote:It might, if the elements of the offence (set out in that Act) can be proven.

If it is a malicious communication, then it is a malicious communication, whether or not that fact can be proven.
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10314
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:34 pm

I was uncertain was to whether a Tweet, broadcast to the world at large would qualify as being sent to another person, but your answer suggests you believe the action meets the requirements, the only questions are of belief and intent, and the proof thereof.

In terms of belief, the integrity and impartiality of the Civil Service is fundamental and ought to be almost beyond question.
If he has proper grounds to believe otherwise, then that is very serious and should be properly looked at.
Else, if he has no such grounds, but believes it nonetheless then he has no business standing as an MP.
If he has said these things knowing them to be untrue, then his motivation is clearly to diminish the reputation of the Civil Service staff and distress is part and parcel of a diminished reputation.
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10314
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby atticus » Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:37 pm

search for "twitter joke trial" - the Robin Hood Airport case from a few years ago.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20295
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby atticus » Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:48 pm

Hairyloon wrote:
atticus wrote:It might, if the elements of the offence (set out in that Act) can be proven.

If it is a malicious communication, then it is a malicious communication, whether or not that fact can be proven.

But if the necessary facts cannot be proven, an offence under the particular statute that you identified has not been committed. Or do you think otherwise?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20295
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby shootist » Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:17 pm

Hairyloon wrote:
atticus wrote:It might, if the elements of the offence (set out in that Act) can be proven.

If it is a malicious communication, then it is a malicious communication, whether or not that fact can be proven.


If what he said was true then it was true, whether or not the fact can be proven.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3697
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:36 pm

atticus wrote:But if the necessary facts cannot be proven, an offence under the particular statute that you identified has not been committed.

Let us try an analogue.
A man kills his wife, and does so cleverly enough that it is impossible to prove that he did it. Has there been a murder? You appear to say not.
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10314
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby atticus » Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:07 pm

Why exactly did you link to the Malicious Communications Act when you asked the question in the first place?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20295
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:19 pm

Because it appears to be a malicious communication.
Why are you avoiding addressing the analogue? Do you really think a crime only occurs if it is proven to have occurred?
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10314
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Conspiring to mislead the House.

Postby atticus » Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:24 pm

You ask a question about malicious communications. In doing so you link to the Malicious Communications Act. Given that we are discussing law I point you to the elements of the offence under that Act. Rather than discuss the law of malicious communications, you then come up with a ridiculous analogy, which you call an analogue.

What makes you allege that the communication in question was malicious? You appear to think it was.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20295
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

PreviousNext

Return to Constitutional Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest