Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. DPP v Bussetti video stereotyped the people in Grenfell Tower. He may well have been referring to the comment “this is what happens when they don’t pay their rent”. 35. I accept that the racism factor is potentially relevant to this extent. For the offence under s 127(1)(a) to be committed the sender must intend or be aware that the message is not simply offensive but grossly offensive. The fact that the message is in bad taste, even shockingly bad taste, is not enough: see per Lord Judge CJ in Chambers v DPP at [28] and the CPS guidance on prosecutions involving social media communications. Mr Summers reminded us of the Strasbourg case law on Article 10 of the ECHR such as Alekhina v Russia (2019) 68 EHRR 14 (the “Pussy Riot” case) which also emphasises this, but it appears that expressly racist discourse has not been held to be protected under Article 10. 36. Nevertheless, I would accept the prosecution submission that the Chief Magistrate did not address the significance of the fact that on 6 November 2018, that is to say two days after the bonfire, the Respondent was shown the video which had been uploaded on YouTube; accepted that it was his; and himself described it as “shocking” and “horrible”. Assuming in his favour that it was not his but Mr Hancock’s or someone else’s, it was so similar in what it showed that Mr Bussetti thought it was his. No one suggests that there were two different effigies burned on the bonfire. It may be that the sound quality of Mr Bussetti’s video was not as good as that of the video which we have seen (if it was indeed not the same one), or the camera angle slightly different, but that is of minimal significance. In my judgment a court of trial would be entitled to conclude that the s 127(1)(a) offence was constituted by a video of the burning effigy without any sound track at all. 37. I would therefore answer question 2, “yes”. Question 3: was the court required to consider whether the content contained in the Respondent’s video was “grossly offensive to members of the public or victims of the Grenfell tragedy? 38. I consider that this question is also to be answered “yes” in the light of the affirmative answer to question 2. Since it was clear for the reasons given above that Mr Bussetti’s video was substantially similar (though maybe not identical) to the one uploaded to YouTube and played in court, the Chief Magistrate was required to consider whether its content was grossly offensive and whether the Respondent intended it to be so or was aware that it was likely to be so. What order should then be made? 39. Mr Summers submits that even if questions 2 and 3 are answered yes, the appeal should nonetheless be dismissed. He submits that the best the DPP could do in this court would be obtain an order for the case to be remitted to the same judge for the trial to continue; and since the Chief Magistrate held that she could not be sure that the cut-out figures depicted on the effigy were not the defendant and his friends, burned in what she rightly described as a bonfire joke of colossal bad taste, she would have dismissed the case anyway. 40. Even if the trial court accepts that the cut-out figures may have been intended to represent the Defendant and his friends, that would not in my view provide a defence