Jail Time for Facebook Crimes
There have now been a number of sentences set for so-called “Facebook crimes”; that is, attempts using Facebook and other social media to organise rioting, or looting, or other criminal activity.
Or, as has been claimed, joking about attempts to organise rioting, or looting, or other criminal activity.
Or, attempting to organise rioting, or looting, or other criminal activity, and in some way not really meaning it to happen.
Here are some of the sentences I have met in the news, ranging from the serious to the trivial.
David Glyn Jones, 21, Four Months, Guilty Plea
David Glyn Jones received a four-month sentence for suggesting riots in Bangor on Facebook. He pled guilty plea to an offence under the Communications Act. He was sentenced in a Magistrates’ Court, which cannot pass sentences beyond 6 months in jail.
A 21-year-old man has been jailed for four months after posting an invitation to start a riot which appeared on Facebook for 20 minutes.
David Glyn Jones, of Bangor, Gwynedd, told friends: “Let’s start Bangor riots,” Caernarfon magistrates heard.
His words on Facebook:
”I don’t see why everyone’s complaining about the rioters. Given the chance I’d love to smash up a police car, wouldn’t you?”
His words afterwards:
Jones, who admitted an offence under the Communications Act, did not think it would be taken seriously, his solicitor said.
Jordan Blackshaw, 21, and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, Four Years, Guilty Plea
Jordan Blackshaw and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan pled guilty to charges under the Sections 44 and 46 of the Serious Crime Act, which allows ‘incitement’ of a crime to be tried the same way as actually committing the crime. These charges carry a maximum sentence of 10 years in jail where riot is encouraged.
Two men from Cheshire have been jailed for four years each for using Facebook to incite disorder during riots in England last week.
Jordan Blackshaw, 21, of Vale Road, Marston and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, of Richmond Avenue, Warrington, were jailed at Chester Crown Court.
Blackshaw’s words:
The Crown Prosecution Service said Blackshaw had created a Facebook event called “Smash d[o]wn in Northwich Town”, intended for the receipt of the “Mob Hill Massive Northwich Lootin’”. The page went on to specify a meeting time and place of 9 August, between 13:00 and 16:00 BST, “behind maccies” – thought to be the McDonald’s restaurant in Northwich town centre.
His words afterwards:
“Chris Johnson said: “Jordan originally set up the Facebook site for a joke, which he accepts was in bad taste and inappropriate, and he is remorseful.”
(Note, Jordan Blackshaw is appealing his sentence.)
Sutcliffe-Keenan’s words:
Sutcliffe-Keenan, meanwhile, created a Facebook page calling on people to “riot” on 10 August. His message went out to 400 contacts on the site, but he took down the page the following morning, claiming the post had been a joke.
Joshua Moulinie, 19, No Charge, write a Letter of Apology
- Joshua Moulinie’s Local Spar (credit: Sky News)
Joshua Moulinie was
Joshua Moulinie posted a message on his Facebook wall urging people to damage the Spar store in his home town of Bream, Forest of Dean.
But instead of facing the courts, Mr Moulinie – who said it was a “blatant joke” – was told to write a letter of apology to the shop owner
His words afterwards:
“It was a very, very blatant joke. I’m not sorry at all for it. I’m sorry for the reaction it caused, but not for the action,” he said. ”Also can I make it very clear I never intended to riot.”
What to make of that?
The defences – perhaps more accurately ‘mitigation’, given the consistent Guilty pleas – are all of the ’just a joke‘, ’moment of madness‘, ’didn’t expect to be taken seriously‘ variety. How are the Courts to know whether these were genuine or not? What would you expect anyone to say?
It’s also worth noting that the “four years” is actually more likely to be 2 years for good behaviour, and has already – I think – been reduced from six years for the Guilty plea. Equally the 4 month sentence was originally longer, and he will be free after around 9 weeks.
My take is that – far from showing an ’outbreak of totalitarian behaviour from a clearly politically motivated Police and Judiciary’ that has been claimed – we have the Judiciary taking the circumstances of each incident into account, and passing sentences which seem quite sensible.
Terms are reportedly about 25% heavier. Again, for a context of Civil Disorder where lives have been at risk, or have been lost, and ordinary people have been terrorised, I’m not going to quarrel with that.
I have no particular problem with a sentence of around 5 years for people aiming to organise a riot. Blackshaw and Sutcliffe-Keenan aimed was to replicate riots which, elsewhere in the and only a day before, had caused ordinary people to be burned out of their homes while they were still inside them, and other people to be killed.
The Serious Crime Act provides for attempts to organise a riot to be sentenced on the basis as actually succeeding in organising one, and 5-6 years is a not unreasonable sentence where the riots have been the most serious in the UK for 30-50 years.
Equally, I have no particular problem with Joshua Moulinie’s slap on the wrist for his ‘joke’. Perhaps he won’t be such an idiot next time.
Lessons to take away?
One lesson here is blatantly obvious: don’t make jokes about looting shops and burning down people’s houses at a time shops are being looted and homes burnt down not far away, and technology you use to make the jokes is being used to organise crimes simultaneously.
Another is that our legal system is treating speech online and on Social Media as part of the normal everyday course of conversation.
So if you try and set up a crime on Facebook, via Blackberry or on Twitter, you will be treated in the same way as if you had done it in a pub, down the market, or in your lounge.
Now that – the Internet as merely another communication channel in society – I welcome.
August 31, 2011 at 21:05
-
what a tragedy…
- August
30, 2011 at 19:00
-
To my mind the controversy surrounding the sentences passed on people
associated with the riots is the apparent inconsistency.
For actually being part of the riot and stealing, people are being given
community service. For writing some dumb stuff on facebook saying “yeah, lets
riot”, 4 years. There should be even-handedness for all of those convicted of
being part of the riots, but there doesn’t appear to be any.
The even-handedness should also apply across the board including those that
loot the public purse: MPs get mere months for appropriating tens of thousands
of pounds worth of taxpayer’s money, but a guy caught during the riots before
he could steal anything gets 2 years.
- August 30, 2011 at 18:44
- August 30, 2011 at 16:01
-
What if you think about starting a riot in your head?
- August 30, 2011 at 16:17
-
I think that’s allowed so far.
-
August 30, 2011 at 16:39
-
Only because the Powers-that-be haven’t yet perfected the
technology to ‘prove’ the evil thoughts.
Give them time…………………….
- August 30, 2011 at
18:44
-
Haha.
They can always just assume that you are guilty
.
- August 30, 2011 at 15:27
-
For his hyperbolic ‘threat’ to ‘bomb’ Robin Hood Airport, it seems Paul
Cambers got off very lightly.
- August 30, 2011 at 15:24
-
I thought the sentencing was steep. I know context is an issue and it’s
hard to draw the line between things being planned and things actually
happening.
All crimes are tried with hindsight and with hindsight, the two guys that
got four years for example; nothing happened. They should be punished for sure
but not with a custodial sentence.
Obviously don’t know their backgrounds, but being in prison for them will
be a life changing event and not for the better.
I also think there was a degree of hysteria going on in the light of it
all, the courts were ramming these cases through (what happens to due
diligence?) The papers were full of righteous indignation as were the smarmy
self-serving hyprocritical political class.
It’s really hard to agree with the sentences handed down when you have a
load of braying horse-faced politicians clamouring for the moral highground;
that really made me want to puke and I’d argue; was more likely to incite a
riot than what some misguided youth with poor judgement scrawled on his
facebook page.
They should all be charged, was it not they who who actually incited these
riots?
- August 30, 2011 at 16:11
-
>All crimes are tried with hindsight and with hindsight, the two guys
that got four years for example; nothing happened. They should be punished
for sure but not with a custodial sentence.
On that one, the law specifically prescibes custodial sentences for
incitement.
One point that I need to cover – particularly in relation to Pennyred
“Freedom of Speech on Facebook” nonsense, but another day, is that some
‘Child Abuse’ convictions are for incitement and conspiracy without
achieving any actual results.
Should they be non-custodial too?
Example:
http://content.met.police.uk/News/Men-jailed-for-conspiracy-to-rape/1260267596611/1257246745756
“Three men have been sentenced to a total of 27 years after Internet chat
evidence has been used for what is believed to be the first time in London
to prove an offence of conspiracy to rape a child.
David Beavan was sentenced to 11 years for conspiracy to rape including a
number of offences under the Protection of Children Act and Alan Hedgcock
and Robert Mayers were both sentenced to eight years also for conspiracy to
rape a child and a number of offences under the Protection of Children Act.
“
-
August 30, 2011 at 18:51
-
As is so often the case with the law, the situation is a bit more
complicated than that.
Conspiracy is different to Incitement (or Encouraging or Assisting, as
it’s now been called, in a largely pointless amendment of the law). A
conspiracy to commit an offence is more serious than Encouraging or
Assisting an offence. A conspiracy occurs where two or more people reach
an agreement to commit a criminal offence (there are some bell and
whistles, but that’s the gist of it). Encouraging or Assisting requires no
such agreement.
To take the child abuse example which you noted suggested, lets say
that Hedgcook had suggested abducting and abusing a child, and the other’s
had said No. Hedgcook would have been guilty of Encouraging or Assisting,
and the others would have been guilty of nothing. Hedgcook’s sentence
would have been less than he received for the conspiracy charge because
the plan would have been less well developed. Because the other two agreed
(at least initially) to the plan, a conspiracy came into existence. That
conspiracy then clearly developed and became quite detailed. The more that
occurred, the more serious the conspiracy became and the more lengthy the
eventual sentences that were handed down.
Where you’ve got the law a little wrong is where, in your original
post, you say that Encouraging and Assisting an offence under the SCA2007
results in a sentence as if the actual offence had taken place. A person
who Encourages or Assists and offence is “liable” to the same maximum
sentence as the offence being encouraged or assisted, but will not
necessarily get it. The word “liable” in statutory drafting is simply used
to indicate the maximum sentence that could be imposed. You can see this
clearly in the wording for Encouraging or Assisting Murder. Murder carries
a mandatory life sentence. A murderer is not “liable” to life
imprisonment; a murderer gets life imprisonment. However, the wording for
Encouraging or Assisting Murder is “liable” to life imprisonment. In other
words, that’s the maximum but he won’t necessarily get it. Indeed, it
would be silly, if a person posted “Let’s kill John Smith” on Facebook and
got life for it, even though no one actually attempted to kill John
Smith.
To a large degree, this merely reflects common sense. If you sentence
on the basis that a person who encourages or assists something which never
happens, then you enter the realm of speculating as to what might have
happened in order to determine the sentence. That’s a course of action
which is rife with difficulties.
In your reply to my post, above, you ask what would get the maximum
sentence if inciting a riot which didn’t happen only got 1 or 2 years. I’d
suggest an answer which ran something like this:
Encouraging a riot which didn’t happen: 1 – 2 years
Encouraging a
riot which did happen, but not actually participating: more than 2 years.
Just how much more would depend on the size of the riot
Encouraging a
riot which did happen, and participating in it yourself: lots. Up to 10
years.
Remember that it is possible to incite an offence which is more serious
than an offence which actually occurs. Thus, you could encourage a riot
(max sentence 10 years) but only actually get a violent disorder (5
years). This is particularly relevant given that no one is ever charged
with riot due to various financial liability issues that I will not bore
you with. However, it creates a possibility that the “inciter” (I refuse
to call him an encourge and assister. It’s silly) could receive a more
serious sentence than is open to the rest of the participants, which is
something that the situation might well justify.
I think the part of the SCA which might had led to you getting hold of
the wrong end of the stick is section 66, but that deals with indirect
encouragement; ie – a person (A) doing something which causes another
person (B) to encourage or assist a criminal offence. A is treated as if
he had done the encouraging or assisting, not as if he had done the
offence itself.
It’s not the best drafted piece of law in the world, but so few of them
are these days.
- August 30, 2011 at 16:12
-
August 30, 2011 at 14:08
-
I think, by and large, the sentences for those involved in the rioting are
about right. The lady who got custody for handling a piece of clothing stolen
by her son (I think it was) obviously got an excessive sentence and that was
reflected by the prompt and successful appeal. The 4 year sentences for the
Facebook boys are a bit steep, in my view, and I think their appeals have a
fair chance of success. I’d have thought 1 or 2 years would have been
sufficient, and 3 would have been stiff but not appealable.
Where I do think things have gone awry is the apparent repeal of the Bail
Act. It is quite clear that people who do not meet the criteria for remands in
custody prior to conviction ate nevertheless being remanded simply because
they’re accused of something terrible.
Now, these people might be guilty. For all I know, they’re ALL guilty. But
they haven’t been convicted and that means they’re legally innocent. This is
not a mere technicality. This is the fundamental underpinning of our justice
system. The presumption of innocence is one of the things which makes it not
OK to attack police officers with petrol bombs.
Obviously, no one has formally repealed the Bail Act, but it’s obvious that
instructions have come down from on high. A Camberwell Magistrate admitted as
much a couple of weeks ago, before being jumped on very hard. I myself have
had a case where the Youth Offending Service refused to prove a bail support
package for an (unconvicted) youth defendant, or even conduct an assessment of
his suitabillity for fail, but refused to say why. Upon receipt of a lengthy
letter pointing out the multiple ways in which they were breaching both their
statutory obligations and their own code of conduct, and asking for
chapter-and-verse on how the decision had been reached, they changed their
minds and decided to provide a bail package after all. But still didn’t
explain why. Draw your own conclusions.
This is important not just because it means the law is being disregarded by
the institutions which are supposed to implement it, but also because it
suggests that the Executive is making direct, secret and unconstitutional
attempts to interfere with the functioning of the Judiciary, both lay and
professional.
That, incidentally, is a Very Bad Thing.
- August 30, 2011 at 15:43
-
>I think, by and large, the sentences for those involved in the
rioting are about right.
Agree.
>The lady who got custody for handling a piece of clothing stolen by
her son (I think it was) obviously got an excessive sentence and that was
reflected by the prompt and successful appeal.
Again – agree. And I’d say that that shows the system to be working.
>The 4 year sentences for the Facebook boys are a bit steep, in my
view, and I think their appeals have a fair chance of success. I’d have
thought 1 or 2 years would have been sufficient, and 3 would have been stiff
but not appealable.
My comments here assume no discount for incitement to riot rather than
riot, which is I think the statutory position.
Not sure on that. Since we are a scale of up to 10 years, it’s difficult
to see how rioting could be much more serious – scores of houses burnt down,
6 (I think) people dead etc.
If *this* is 1-2 year stuff, what would qualify for 5 – never mind
10?
>Where I do think things have gone awry is the apparent repeal of the
Bail Act. It is quite clear that people who do not meet the criteria for
remands in custody prior to conviction ate nevertheless being remanded
simply because they’re accused of something terrible.
>Now, these
people might be guilty. For all I know, they’re ALL guilty. But they haven’t
been convicted and that means they’re legally innocent. This is not a mere
technicality. This is the fundamental underpinning of our justice system.
The presumption of innocence is one of the things which makes it not OK to
attack police officers with petrol bombs.
There I concede you may very well have a point – I don’t have detailed
knowledge of bail etc. OTOH I can see how there is a high risk of
absconding, which is a criteria for refusal, and that the process has been
running quickly so it’s not as if people will be detained for many
months.
>Obviously, no one has formally repealed the Bail Act, but it’s
obvious that instructions have come down from on high. A Camberwell
Magistrate admitted as much a couple of weeks ago, before being jumped on
very hard.
According to every report I have seen, that was from the local Clerk
(note to readers: professional Official who runs the Magistrates Court) not
anyone political, so is more guidance from a professional rather than a
political imposition. IMO that is a *very* significant distinction, and is
more in line with the practice of Court Clerks giving legal advice to
Magistrates during sittings.
>This is important not just because it means the law is being
disregarded by the institutions which are supposed to implement it, but also
because it suggests that the Executive is making direct, secret and
unconstitutional attempts to interfere with the functioning of the
Judiciary, both lay and professional.
>That, incidentally, is a Very
Bad Thing
As explained, I have seen nothing which suggests that this is from the
Executive, which – as you say – *would* be terrible.
-
August 30, 2011 at 16:41
-
The Magistrate described the email as a “government directive.” The
fact that it came from the clerk is only to be expected. Magistrates are
lay individuals. Whenever information from government is disseminated to
Magistrates, it goes via the clerks. Usually, this is completely
legitemate: MoJ circulars, updates from the Sentencing Guidelines Council,
and so on. If the government were to issue a directive to Magistrates to
bang everyone up, I’d expect it to come via the clerks.
Also, the two things are quite hard to confuse.
“Hello. This is the Government. Send all the rioters to prison.
Thanks.”
“Hello. This is the Clerk to the Justices for your local justice area.
Just to remind you that sentencing guidelines are just guidelines, not
tramlines. I know that you’re told this every day by defence solicitors
when they’re trying to get you to exercise your discretion in favour of
sentencing at a level below the guidelines, and you generally ignore them.
Usually on the advice of your clerk. However, this is different. I’m
saying that you can also sentence more severely than the guidelines, which
I know you’ll be just fine with. But make sure you judge every case on its
individual merits. Oh, and this isn’t a government directive.”
As to what followed, the denial would occur whether the directive
existed or not. No one would admit the existence of any such directive. I
suppose you could give them the benefit of the doubt but the thing is,
they’re, y’know, the Government.
It’s not just that though. I gave you the example of the Youth
Offending Service’s conduct. And whilst risk of failure to surrender to
bail is a ground for withholding bail, the law requires that there be
“substantial grounds” to believe that is going to happen and that any risk
cannot be managed with bail conditions. I’ve acted for people accused of
rape (max sentence life), GBH (ditto), drugs offences (ditto), burglary
(14 years), robbery (life) who’ve had bail. Not all of them, obviously,
and the flip side is that I’ve seen people remanded in custody for
shoplifting in the past, if they have a bad record of offending on bail
and/or not showing up. That’s fine. That’s the law being properly applied.
But when you consistently see people being remanded in situations where
the stated grounds for remand do not match the defendants’ circumstances,
then you know that they’re being remanded for what they’re accused of,
plain and simple.
- August 30, 2011 at
18:43
-
August 30, 2011 at 13:47
-
matt
That’s a different matter, I think. If you have groups such as
UKUncut deliberately organising violence against the government for their own
political ends then that’s one thing. I am talking about bored spotty kids who
may have posted something stupid on FaceBook to brighten up their dull lives,
or the bloke with no previous convictions who handed himself in for nicking an
Armani T shirt on imuplse (and he returned the T shirt).he got 2 years. A
pointless and stupid sentence. And just togo off on a tangent, I wonder what
the value of the T shirt was, compared to, say…oooh the expenses IDave as an
MP had to return for tidying up his garden …..?
Just a thought. I seem to
be becoming a revolutionary….!
- August 30, 2011 at 16:07
-
August 30, 2011 at 13:44
-
Roger Helmer tweeted during the riots that rioters should be shot on sight.
As far as I know police haven’t even interviewed him for incitement, despite
the fact that his tweet could have been seen as encouraging vigilante
behaviour.
-
August 30, 2011 at 15:22
-
Surely, the police are the only enforcers with guns to do the shooting?
/sarc
- August 30, 2011 at 13:27
-
August 30, 2011 at 13:11
-
I have an an odd and slightly unexepected (by me!) take on this. We have an
Establishment which for years has bent over backwards to look after the
criminal not the victim, and which ignores the views of those most affected by
cri me: the working classes (not the unemployed who are abusing the systemn –
and no I don’t mean that all who are unemployed are, because there are clearly
many many people who need and want to work, butcan’t get a job in our messed
up economy). Anyway, at some point during the riots Idave and his mates got
scared that things might just be getting a bit serious – who knows, there
could even be a crime in North Oxfordshire if things carried on, perhaps some
poaching or some milk might be stolen!
Oh dear! And the result is that the
hug a hoodie brigade have gone into a reactionary tailspin, jailing people who
don’t neen more than a slap on the wrist or a telling off. Naturally those who
were really in the thick of it setting fires and purpetrading organised
looting will have bee n “tooled up” with hoods, balaclavas etc and will get
away with it.
To that extent, I find myself surprisingly sympathetic with
some of the felons.
Tin hat on…….
Comments are closed.
{ 22 comments }