Fight the Power (Part 2)

Aim

Further to our previous Crowdfunder (https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/fight-the-power), Kate and I are shocked and saddened to confirm that Kat...

Further to our previous Crowdfunder (https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/fight-the-power), Kate and I are shocked and saddened to confirm that Kate was found guilty. We intend to fight this and are launching an appeal, so have set up this second Crowdfunder to help fund this (and to assist with the court costs Kate has to pay after her guilty verdict).

Having been initially arrested in December 2018 under suspicion of harassment and malicious communications, this charge was changed as the evidence did not support it, and the conviction here is for ‘persistent use of an electronic communications network for the purpose of causing ANNOYANCE, INCONVENIENCE or needless anxiety to another’ (capitalisation mine), under section 127 of the communications act 2003. The notion that to annoy or inconvenience another should be illegal is an incredibly low bar to set for criminality, as was argued by Kate’s legal team – indeed, appeal courts have previously ruled that

‘a message which does not create fear or apprehension in those to who it is communicated, or who may reasonably be expected to see it, falls outside the provision [of the 2003 act]’.

Yet here, the judge stated during trial that Kate’s tweets did not even need to be offensive, but merely have been ‘persistent and had the purpose to annoy’, in order for the charge to stand. The judge also ruled that ‘persistent’ was not merely about number or frequency; a key point, as there were only 8 tweets in question, posted by Kate across 4 dates between September - November 2018 (which were reported to police and lead to her arrest), only 2 of which were actually directed at the alleged victim. The other 6 tweets during this period were posted to Kate’s followers, by which time the alleged victim had been blocked by Kate from her twitter account. So, to be clear, that is 8 tweets over 3 months, 6 of which weren't even intended to be seen by the alleged victim - hardly what most people would call persistent I feel. There were then 9 tweets in March 2019, which were part of a single polite conversation and contained nothing offensive, yet the judge felt that even these were done to annoy, and thus were criminal.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act protects our freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This right is potentially in conflict with hate speech laws in general, and there is much debate surrounding this, but here we seem to be infringing it even further – speech that is not hateful, grossly offensive or even offensive, but simply annoying, can be criminalised with career ending consequences; in fact, when giving the ruling, the judge even stated ‘we teach our children to be kind’ (is unkindness now a criminal offense?) we should all be appalled.

I should also add, that Kate still has the civil suit against her to contend aswell, though this was stayed until after the criminal proceedings, which I assume also means the appeal, so it could be some time before Kate is over this ordeal and able to move on with her life in any meaningful way.

Kate and I would like to thank everyone who has supported her during this extremely difficult time, and for the encouragement she has received to run this second Crowdfunder for the appeal.

Article about Kate's conviction

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/i-stand-with-kate-scottow 

Article about Section 127

https://www.scl.org/articles/2579-section-127-of-the-communications-act-2003-threat-or-menace

This project successfully funded on 9th April 2020