Previous 2 / 19 Next

Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. DPP v Bussetti Lord Justice Bean 1. On 14 June 2017 71 residents died in the fire disaster at Grenfell Tower, a tall block of flats in West London. 2. On 3 November 2018 Paul Bussetti went to a bonfire night party at the home of his friend Clifford Smith. There were about thirty people present. Some of them brought guys or effigies to burn on the bonfire. One of these effigies was a tall structure in flammable material depicting Grenfell Tower. It had the word "Grenfell” at the top and showed six cut out figures including one said by the Crown to be in a hijab looking out of the upper floors of the tower. 3. Mr Bussetti took a video of the burning of the Grenfell Tower effigy on the bonfire on his mobile and later that evening sent the video to two WhatsApp groups, each with very limited membership. 4. By Monday 5 November the video had been shared on social media. It attracted attention in a national newspaper and on television. Mr Bussetti went to Croydon Police Station that evening and was interviewed after being cautioned. He admitted filming the Grenfell Tower effigy burning and sending it to a WhatsApp group. He said he had not taken any photos or videos of any other effigies at the party, except maybe for a photograph of his own, and he had not shared any photos or videos of any effigies other than the Grenfell Tower one. He thought he had deleted all the videos of the Grenfell Tower effigy that were on his phone. 5. He was shown a video of the Grenfell Tower effigy burning which the police had obtained from the internet. He said he believed it was his recording. He watched the video and identified by name a number of people who could be seen or heard on it. He was asked what he thought of the footage and replied “terrible”. He was asked whether he thought it could be quite offensive to people and replied “definitely”. He was asked what other people would think about the incident and replied “it was shocking”. He was asked “what about the people that survived the Grenfell Tower fire?” and replied “even more – terrified”. He denied any intention for the video to go viral or for it to support any agenda. He said “There was no purpose. It was just a horrible video.” 6. He was charged with sending a grossly offensive message by means of a public electronic communications network, contrary to s.127(1) of the Communications Act 2003. 7. The trial was before the Chief Magistrate, Senior District Judge Arbuthnot (as she then was: now Mrs Justice Arbuthnot). It occupied two working days. We were told that the defence raised an issue as to whether sending a message to a WhatsApp group was capable of constituting an offence under s 127(1); the Chief Magistrate ruled that it was. That issue has not been argued before us. 8. The parties agreed formal admissions which included the following:“3. The defendant took a video of the burning of the Grenfell Tower effigy on his mobile Telephone (ex. HEG05118/1).

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Bussetti

Case Law

Country

United Kingdom

Country Location

Latitude: 52.32950805122076

Longitude: -1.4047851562500706

Country Location (linked Case Law): United Kingdom

Decision Date: Jul 30, 2021

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Reversed and Remanded

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Judgment in Favor of Defendant/ Acquittal

Keywords

Digital Rights
Discrimination
Hate Speech

Judicial Body: Appellate Court

Court Name: High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division

Case Number: [2021] EWHC 2140 (Admin)

Case Summary: The High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division held that a District Judge should have considered whether a video recorded by the defendant Bussetti was seriously offensive to the public and was substantially similar to a video uploaded to YouTube. Paul Bussetti had recorded and uploaded to Whatsapp a video of people burning an effigy depicting Grenfell Tower, a building in which 71 people died. An unknown person also uploaded a video of the event on YouTube which went viral, garnering newspaper and television attention. The Director of Public Prosecutions accused Bussetti of breaching s.127(1) of the Communications Act 2003 by sending a grossly offensive message by means of a public electronic communications network. The District court dismissed the case finding the prosecution had not been able to prove that the video uploaded to YouTube was the one recorded by Bussetti. On appeal, the High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division held that the District Judge did not correctly appreciate that the defendant himself had admitted to the police that the video uploaded by an unknown person to YouTube was substantially similar to the one he recorded. However, the Court held that a new trial should be conducted before a differently constituted court. The Court held that it should be cautious in the context of a cassation appeal and not substitute the trial to be conducted under a lower court. In particular, the Court mentioned that Bussetti had presented further legal arguments as to whether WhatsApp is a public electronic communications network for the purposes of section 127 of Communications Act 2003, which were not heard.

Case Significance: The High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division held that it should not convict directly on appeal a defendant accused of having breached s.127(1) of the Communications Act 2003 for having recorded and sent to two WhatsApp groups a video considered by the prosecution to be discriminatory and also seriously offensive to the public or the victims of the Grenfell tragedy. The Court considered that it should uphold the prosecution’s appeal and overturn the defendant’s acquittal, but remit the case to a new court to analyze the defendant’s new arguments that had not been heard (i.e., whether WhatsApp is a public electronic communications network for the purposes of section 127 of the Communications Act 2003). In this sense, despite the fact that the video could be considered seriously offensive and discriminatory, the Court considered that it should be cautious in the context of an appeal and not convict the defendant by substituting the trial to be conducted. In short, the decision reflects that even in the face of “expressions” that may be considered seriously offensive and discriminatory, a sentence of conviction limiting freedom of expression must be taken by examining all the arguments of the defendant and respecting his judicial guarantees.

Decision (including concurring or dissenting opinions) establishes influential or persuasive precedent outside its jurisdiction.

This case did not set a binding or persuasive precedent either within or outside its jurisdiction. The significance of this case is undetermined at this point in time.

Source URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: Jul 19, 2024

Primary Documents

Judgment
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Bussetti

Primary Documents

Notifications