- Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1 - Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety.
- Communications Act 2003 section 127 - Improper use of public electronic communications network.
- Online Safety Act 2023 Part 10 - this contains several offences relating to communications.
Mr Joseph ("Joey") Barton was a professional footballer for Manchester City FC (2002 - 2007) and Manchester United FC (2007 - 2011).
On 8 December 2025, he was sentenced for 6 offences under section 1(1)(b) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988. He was convicted of the offences by a jury.
The section applies to
the sending of any electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature IF the purpose, or one purpose, is to 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.
Key to the offence is that the communication(s) must be grossly offensive and that plainly goes beyond a comment that is merely hurtful. In addition, the prosecution must establish, so that the jury is sure, that the defendant had the purpose of causing distress or anxiety to the recipient.
The offence is "either-way" and carries - (a) on conviction on indictment - imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both); (b) on summary conviction - imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine (or both).
Barton's case was tried in the Crown Court by HHK Judge Menary KC sitting with a jury.
See Sentencing remarks of HHJ Menary KC.
The judge commented that there are 'no definitive Crown Court guidelines for this type of offence, though the Magistrates’ guidelines for communication network offences provide useful assistance in identifying potentially relevant culpability factors.' Given that the offence is triable either-way, this is an omission that the Sentencing Council ought to address.
The judge found the defendant;s culpability to be high since the 'communications formed a
campaign as demonstrated by wide distribution, were targeted to maximise their impact, and in certain instances were motivated by hostility on the grounds of race.'
There was also clear evidence of the harm suffered by all three victims. Each victim had provided a detailed victim personal statement setting out in clear terms the impact of the conduct.
Barton received a Suspended Sentence Order. Two counts were regarded as racially aggravated and received custodial terms of 6 months each. The other 4 counts each received 4 months custody. All sentences to be concurrent and all suspended for 18 months. Barton is subject to a rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 20 days; and must complete 200 hours of unpaid work in the community. The judge also imposed restraining orders relating to each of 3 victims. Those orders will last for 2 years.
The jury plainly regarded the communications as grossly offensive and they must have been satisfied that there was a purpose of causing the victims distress or anxiety. A jury verdict is one way in which a jury - made up of citizens - expresses a view on behalf of the wider community. The condemnation is not from a State-appointed judge but from fellow citizens.
The government plans to remove the right to elect for jury trial in cases where the likely sentence will be 3 years imprisonment or less. See previous post. If that proposal comes about then cases such as these may still reach the Crown Court but will not be tried by juries. The view of the ordinary citizen, as represented by the jury, will be lost.
Please read the sentencing remarks in full.
No comments:
Post a Comment