Freeborn Adam

I’ve been following the case of Paul Chambers for a while now, on the periphery of my interest (there are a lot of cases like that… they come up in the news and I bookmark them in memory because I am interested from a civil liberties or human rights point of view as to how they turn out) so it was with some interest that I observed that the legal commentator known as Jack of Kent on twitter announced that the case was to be heard on Monday.

If you are reading this, in all likelihood you know about the case that came to be known as #twitterjoketrial and how it turned out, but on the off chance that you come across this blog and you don’t, Paul was waiting to catch a plane from Robin Hood airport to Northern Ireland to meet his (I believe) new girlfriend when he received news that the aiport was closed due to bad weather. In response, and out of frustration, he 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!”. he was arrested and ultimately charged under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 (which makes it an offence for a person to send a “menacing” message over a public telecommunications network). On Monday 10th May 2010 he was, in the face of all common sense, found guilty and fined in total £1000. As a trainee accountant with a criminal record he is now unable to continue his training and qualify.

I’m not here to comment on the specifics of the case. This has already been done by a number of people with far more legal knowledge than me and the best stuff is over on Jack of Kent’s blog. There are many good reasons why this is a bad judgement, legally and in terms of the broader civil liberties picture.

First, Paul tweeted out of frustration. OK… it wasn’t big and it wasn’t clever, but frustration makes fools of us all. Second, it became very clear to the investigating officers and the CPS very quickly that Paul was no threat to anybodies safety and that there was no malicious intent behind his message. Yet they chose to pursue the case anyway. Jack of Kent has pointed out that in District Judge Jonathan Bennett’s own summation he makes it clear that the offence as charged required a “mens rea”, a criminal intent, and yet none was offered or suggested, the Judge apparently choosing to surmise one in apparent contradiction to the evidence offered to him. Monday was the day that it became very clear to me that all UK citizens, once innocent until proven guilty, are now simply those-not-yet convicted.

Paul must have felt like he has been living in a surreal Kafkaesque novel. Charged and then convicted of a normal, frustrated outburst.

So, faced with this, what on earth is the purpose of the Law? As an ex-crusty semi-anarchist with a comparatively recently learned respect for the Law (respect not borne of fear, but of greater knowledge and understanding as to the social and philosophical foundations it both has and provides), I teach my now teenage daughter that the purpose of the Law is to protect. It is to protect the citizens of this country from fraud, from violence and from abuse of power. As with any other function of the state, it can be and should be constantly criticised and challenged lest it become the abuser, and though much of its history may have roots in privilege and class, it is growing with a generally progressive society. As society has progressed, the Law has taken on the role of protecting more and more of us until we all fall under its protection under the philosophical ideal of the rule of Law.

So who does this ruling protect? The police and the CPS who had to spend time and money investigating this case to determine that Mr Chambers presented no risk? No. The CPS and the police are employed (ultimately) by you and me to support the process of Law in protecting us. They were simply doing the job we expect of them and once they had ascertained that Mr Chambers was a frustrated beau anxious about not being able to meet his new girlfriend, they should have given him a caution.

No, this ruling tells me one thing and one thing only. I appear to have been mistaken about the purpose of the Law. It seems that the Purpose of the Law is to punish it’s citizens as criminals for normal human behaviour. The purpose of the Law, as seen through District Judge Jonathan Bennett’s eyes, would appear to control, not to protect. And that is a sorry, and terrifying, state of affairs.

Addendum: If you’ve had the good grace to read this far and haven’t yet donated, Paul has decided to appeal. Before he decided a good many of us decided we wanted to donate to help with his fine. Steven Fry offered to pay the whole thing. An appeal will not be cheap, so please donate here at the page set up by @cripesonfriday. This account has been verified by Paul who reluctantly has acknowledged that he will need help to appeal.