ian1964 10,761 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 A Rangers fan who posted a threatening message about Celtic manager Neil Lennon on Twitter has been cleared of committing an offence. Christopher Hay, 22, was the first person to be charged under the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communcations Act in 2012, after writing a message on his social networking site the day the act came into force. Chip shop worker Hay, from Kirkintilloch posted "I seriously do wish that someone would kill that ugly ginger c***, I should've planned my parcel bombs better, next time it'll work #w*****". The comment was posted during the high profile parcel bomb trial at the High Court in Glasgow. Hay claimed it was a "throwaway comment" made by him and not intended to be seen by Lennon. He denied intending to cause fear or alarm or being reckless as to whether he did or not, at his trial at Glasgow Sheriff Court and was found not guilty by sheriff Stuart Reid. While the sheriff branded the comment "an offensive and threatening communication" he said that after considering all of the evidence, that there was not the necessary criminal intent needed for Hay to be found guilty. The court heard that during a police operation, the post was spotted using keywords on a search facility of Twitter. A designated officer who had to search for offensive messages during the trial of Trevor Muirhead and Neil McKenzie, spotted the message and traced it to Hay. When interviewed by police Hay admitted posting the comment on his social networking site. Although he posted the message, he claimed it was never intended to be seen by anyone except his 23 friends who "follow" and view his posts on Twitter and that he claimed were "close friends". The court heard that Lennon's name was not mentioned in the comment and it was not directed towards him by copying it on to his official Twitter site but was written about him. Hay, a self-confessed Rangers fan, claimed: "I had no intention to cause fear or alarm to anybody. It was an absolute throwaway comment, I didn't intend it to go futher." Nobody re-posted the message on their web pages or commented on it. Hay told the court: "It was a moment of madness". When asked why he wrote it he said: "I have no reason in particular why I sent it. I can't even think why I would write such a thing." Procurator fiscal depute Stephen Ferguson asked: "If Neil Lennon or someone close to Neil Lennon were to see that how do you think they would feel?" Hay answered: "They wouldn't be very pleased about it. Taken aback by it, it's not very nice, not something you want to see." Muirhead, 44, and McKenzie, 42, from North Ayrshire, sent devices they believed were capable of exploding and causing injury. The men were found guilty in March 2012 of conspiracy to assault Lennon, former MSP Trish Godman and the late Paul McBride QC and were jailed for five years. http://news.stv.tv/west-central/259433-christopher-hay-cleared-over-offensive-post-celtics-about-neil-lennon/ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTP 0 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Wonder if celtic will do what they do best ............................. appeal it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Funny how he is asked "what would Neil Lennon think about it if he saw it" - yet Neil Lennon gets carte blanche to say and do as he likes without recrimination. Hypocrisy. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 to be fair "ginger c..t" is accurate when describing Lennon. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amms 0 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 It's kind of amusing that someone writes "that ugly ginger cunt" on Twitter and everyone knows who he means. Why people write stuff like that on public forums will always baffle me, he's 22 not 15, he should be old enough to know better. At the same time what a total waste of police and court time. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 It's kind of amusing that someone writes "that ugly ginger cunt" on Twitter and everyone knows who he means. Why people write stuff like that on public forums will always baffle me, he's 22 not 15, he should be old enough to know better. At the same time what a total waste of police and court time. I take your point, but you could say that since he was the first person to be charged under the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communcations Act in 2012 then this case allows the police and the court to ascertain what the parameters will be for a successful conviction in future cases. So the time was not completely wasted. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 This is the relevant section of the Act: 6 Threatening communications (1)A person commits an offence if— (a)the person communicates material to another person, and (b)either Condition A or Condition B is satisfied. (2)Condition A is that— (a)the material consists of, contains or implies a threat, or an incitement, to carry out a seriously violent act against a person or against persons of a particular description, (b)the material or the communication of it would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm, and ©the person communicating the material— (i)intends by doing so to cause fear or alarm,or (ii)is reckless as to whether the communication of the material would cause fear or alarm. (3)For the purposes of Condition A, where the material consists of or includes an image (whether still or moving), the image is taken to imply a threat or incitement such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) if— (a)the image depicts or implies the carrying out of a seriously violent act (whether actual or fictitious) against a person or against persons of a particular description (whether the person or persons depicted are living or dead or actual or fictitious), and (b)a reasonable person would be likely to consider that the image implies the carrying out of a seriously violent act against an actual person or against actual persons of a particular description. (4)Subsection (3) does not affect the generality of subsection (2)(a). (5)Condition B is that— (a)the material is threatening, and (b)the person communicating it intends by doing so to stir up hatred on religious grounds. (6)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to show that the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable. (7)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable— (a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or to a fine, or to both, or (b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both. So there wouldn't appear to be any reasonable doubt that A (a) was satisfied and the purpose of the fiscal's question about Lennon was to establish the "fear and alarm" required by A(b) (and note this is where the OBA meets and intends to extend breach of the peace into the realm of the internet). However, the Sherriff appears to have been satsified that there was no intent to cause fear and alarm, nor was Mr Hay reckless as to whether the communication of the material would cause fear or alarm; so either or both A© (i) or (ii) were not satisfied. B(a) also appears to be satisfied but the Sheriff's ruling indicates that B(b) was not inasmuch as there was no intent "to stir up hatred on religious grounds". The verdict in this case shows once again that this legislation is very poorly drafted; but nonetheless I am fairly sure that the Crown Office would have been confident of a conviction under the "reckless" clause and may well appeal. There is no question in my mind that the intent was to catch exactly this type of situation: a death (or other serious) threat posted online, whether it was meant to be serious or not. I am a not a lawyer but it seems to me that if A© had started regardless of whether "the person communicating the material"; or the "and" at the end of B(a) was "or" it might have been a different story. In any event it was a stupid thing to do, particulary given all the publicity at the time; and we should not be congratulating Mr Hay for getting off, far from it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amms 0 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I take your point, but you could say that since he was the first person to be charged under the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communcations Act in 2012 then this case allows the police and the court to ascertain what the parameters will be for a successful conviction in future cases. So the time was not completely wasted. You think? I would have thought an investigation that established no link to the two guys who sent the 'bomb', only 23 followers on Twitter and not actually making a threat would have meant any procurator fiscal would have decided not to proceed. Evidence and intent might be a good starting point for ascertaining parameters. To be fair BH I've not read anyone congratulating the clown. Criticising the authorities isn't the same thing. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazza_8 233 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 The Government bring in new laws. The police arrest and charge someone with an offence brought in by The Government and the police are slated for it? Nothing to do with them. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 The Government bring in new laws. The police arrest and charge someone with an offence brought in by The Government and the police are slated for it? Nothing to do with them. Yes it is, it has everything to do with them. It is up to the Police to determine if in their opinion an offence has been committed and to present the evidence to the Procurator Fiscal who will then determine if charges are brought. I don't think you can blame the police for reporting the matter, in fact if they had not I think they would have been open to pretty strong criticism. The whole point of the Act was to create offences that hitherto could only be prosecuted as breach of the peace, into the realms of a football match and online communication. However, I agree that the fact that it is proving difficult to successfully prosecute such cases, is not the fault of the Police. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.