High court judges consider whether Paul Chambers' tweet about blowing up Robin Hood airport was a joke or a real threat
Paul Chambers, who was convicted under the Communications Act 2003 for a message on Twitter threatening to blow up Robin Hood airport, is having his case heard by appeal judges at the high court. Photograph: Christopher Thomond
Two senior judges have retired to consider whether a Twitter message threatening to blow up a snowbound Doncaster airport was a joke or a menace to society.
In a landmark high court appeal, Sir Peter Gross and Mr Justice Irwin heard it would take "a halfwit" to treat as a real threat the tweet posted by Paul Chambers in January 2010.
The 28-year-old trainee accountant was preparing to fly to see his new girlfriend in Northern Ireland when snow closed Robin Hood airport and he tweeted to his 690 followers: "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!!"
A week later he was arrested by five police officers, questioned for eight hours, had his computers and phones seized and was subsequently charged and convicted of causing a menace under the Communications Act 2003.
"The preponderance of evidence was that this was a joke. This was a steamroller to crack a nut," said Ben Emmerson QC, appearing for Chambers, who was in court with his now fiancee, Sarah Tonner.
The case has attracted huge interest among Twitter users, not least among celebrities including Stephen Fry who have supported fundraising efforts for Chambers' legal costs. The hearing was attended by comedian Al Murray and Graham Linehan, the writer of Father Ted.
Emmerson asked the judges to consider whether "a message can be menacing if it is not intended to convey a credible threat".
He said: "If the sender of a message doesn't seek to convey a threat it shouldn't be regarded a criminal offence."
It was accepted by airport officials that it was not a credible threat because Chambers had put his name to the message and was a passenger himself, he added.
"Does the history of human conduct ever have it that anyone planning to blow up an airport has gone on a public networking site and said they were going to do it?" he asked.
Emmerson argued that any conviction must have the purpose of either deterrent or punishment. He said the conviction was disproportionate and that the deterrent backfired because it had the effect of sparking a Twitter campaign, which involved 4,000 people sending retweets. If the conviction stood it would leave the law "looking silly", he said.
The appeal judges challenged Emmerson's case, with Irwin insisting: "It is not a question of intent. It is a question of whether it is objectively a menacing message."
Robert Smith QC, appearing on behalf of the director of public prosecutions, said he accepted a tweet that contained menacing terms need not be menacing under the law if it was obviously a joke, but said this was not the case with Chambers' tweet. He said it was "a simple message, with no surrounding context by which the public could judge the context in which it was posted, which constituted a threat to blow up Doncaster airport".
Smith said: "The message was posted at a time when the potential threat to airport security was high. It was capable of being read by members of the airport staff and members of the public as a threat to airport safety and public safety.
"The requirement for public confidence in aircraft and airport security is an important element of free society. A strong deterrent is required in the public interest regardless of whether [the threats] were intended … to be carried into effect or not."
He said Chambers' insistence that it was a joke to his girlfriend was "an undisclosed state of mind" at the time of the tweet.
The judges showed some sympathy for Chambers, who was described by Smith as "a young man of good character", but Irwin said: "One can't distort the law out of sympathy for his position."
Irwin added: "One does not want to have a situation where things that clearly are jokes are prosecuted as criminal offences." But he went on: "It is a menacing message which might be serious and could cause a great deal of grief. How do you get around that?"
Emmerson countered that a man might say to a woman "I'll climb any mountain to be with you"; the message was "a metaphor for [Chambers] to say I am desperately frustrated we can't see each other".
The judges said they would hand down a written judgment in the case.
After the two-and-a-half hour hearing, Al Murray, who compered a fundraising concert to cover Chambers' legal expenses, said Twitter users accept such messages as a "lingua franca" even if they are bad jokes.
"I defend everyone's right to tell rotten jokes," he said. "It is how I earn my living. The law is being pointed absurdly at the wrong thing here. In the end it means we can't say what we want on Twitter and these things are incredibly important."
Linehan, who also performed at the fundraiser, said there were thousands of messages posted on Twitter every day that could be taken as threats.
"The world has changed so completely in the last few years because of Twitter, but there was nothing here to show those changes have been taken into account," he said.
"The problem was this was a bad joke.
If we were all to be convicted because of bad jokes we'd be in terrible trouble."
In a landmark high court appeal, Sir Peter Gross and Mr Justice Irwin heard it would take "a halfwit" to treat as a real threat the tweet posted by Paul Chambers in January 2010.
The 28-year-old trainee accountant was preparing to fly to see his new girlfriend in Northern Ireland when snow closed Robin Hood airport and he tweeted to his 690 followers: "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!!"
A week later he was arrested by five police officers, questioned for eight hours, had his computers and phones seized and was subsequently charged and convicted of causing a menace under the Communications Act 2003.
"The preponderance of evidence was that this was a joke. This was a steamroller to crack a nut," said Ben Emmerson QC, appearing for Chambers, who was in court with his now fiancee, Sarah Tonner.
The case has attracted huge interest among Twitter users, not least among celebrities including Stephen Fry who have supported fundraising efforts for Chambers' legal costs. The hearing was attended by comedian Al Murray and Graham Linehan, the writer of Father Ted.
Emmerson asked the judges to consider whether "a message can be menacing if it is not intended to convey a credible threat".
He said: "If the sender of a message doesn't seek to convey a threat it shouldn't be regarded a criminal offence."
It was accepted by airport officials that it was not a credible threat because Chambers had put his name to the message and was a passenger himself, he added.
"Does the history of human conduct ever have it that anyone planning to blow up an airport has gone on a public networking site and said they were going to do it?" he asked.
Emmerson argued that any conviction must have the purpose of either deterrent or punishment. He said the conviction was disproportionate and that the deterrent backfired because it had the effect of sparking a Twitter campaign, which involved 4,000 people sending retweets. If the conviction stood it would leave the law "looking silly", he said.
The appeal judges challenged Emmerson's case, with Irwin insisting: "It is not a question of intent. It is a question of whether it is objectively a menacing message."
Robert Smith QC, appearing on behalf of the director of public prosecutions, said he accepted a tweet that contained menacing terms need not be menacing under the law if it was obviously a joke, but said this was not the case with Chambers' tweet. He said it was "a simple message, with no surrounding context by which the public could judge the context in which it was posted, which constituted a threat to blow up Doncaster airport".
Smith said: "The message was posted at a time when the potential threat to airport security was high. It was capable of being read by members of the airport staff and members of the public as a threat to airport safety and public safety.
"The requirement for public confidence in aircraft and airport security is an important element of free society. A strong deterrent is required in the public interest regardless of whether [the threats] were intended … to be carried into effect or not."
He said Chambers' insistence that it was a joke to his girlfriend was "an undisclosed state of mind" at the time of the tweet.
The judges showed some sympathy for Chambers, who was described by Smith as "a young man of good character", but Irwin said: "One can't distort the law out of sympathy for his position."
Irwin added: "One does not want to have a situation where things that clearly are jokes are prosecuted as criminal offences." But he went on: "It is a menacing message which might be serious and could cause a great deal of grief. How do you get around that?"
Emmerson countered that a man might say to a woman "I'll climb any mountain to be with you"; the message was "a metaphor for [Chambers] to say I am desperately frustrated we can't see each other".
The judges said they would hand down a written judgment in the case.
After the two-and-a-half hour hearing, Al Murray, who compered a fundraising concert to cover Chambers' legal expenses, said Twitter users accept such messages as a "lingua franca" even if they are bad jokes.
"I defend everyone's right to tell rotten jokes," he said. "It is how I earn my living. The law is being pointed absurdly at the wrong thing here. In the end it means we can't say what we want on Twitter and these things are incredibly important."
Linehan, who also performed at the fundraiser, said there were thousands of messages posted on Twitter every day that could be taken as threats.
"The world has changed so completely in the last few years because of Twitter, but there was nothing here to show those changes have been taken into account," he said.
"The problem was this was a bad joke.
If we were all to be convicted because of bad jokes we'd be in terrible trouble."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/feb/08/judgment-reserved-twitter-threat-appeal?CMP=twt_gu
