Malicious communications: what’s beyond the pale?

Exactly how thick-skinned do local politicians need to be? Nicholas Dobson looks at recent case law

For a conviction under s 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, a message must not only be ‘grossly offensive’ but also intended to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or (an)other(s).
Special tolerance may be required for speech on political issues.

Freedom of expression is ‘one of the essential foundations’ of a democratic society. Says who? The European Court of Human Rights, in Handyside v the United Kingdom (5493/72). So, Art 10(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998) gives everyone the right to freedom of expression, subject to Art 10(2) restrictions as ‘prescribed by law’ and ‘necessary in a democratic society’ for (among other things) ‘the prevention of disorder or crime’ or ‘the protection of the reputation or rights of others’.

But what about potentially offensive or shocking speech? Handyside indicates that, subject to Art 10(2), the right to freedom of expression is applicable not only to information or ideas favourably

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

Malicious communications: what’s beyond the pale?

Exactly how thick-skinned do local politicians need to be? Nicholas Dobson looks at recent case law

For a conviction under s 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, a message must not only be ‘grossly offensive’ but also intended to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or (an)other(s).
Special tolerance may be required for speech on political issues.

But what about potentially offensive or shocking speech? Handyside indicates that, subject to Art 10(2), the right to freedom of expression is applicable not only to information or ideas favourably

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’

Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot

NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake

The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’

NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’

A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes

NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?

After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent

NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?

Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25

Error message

Malicious communications: what’s beyond the pale?

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven