Previous 5 / 19 Next

Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. DPP v Bussetti mentioned this in interview. He called a witness, Clifford Smith, who had also been at the bonfire party and confirmed that the effigy depicted friends of the maker of the effigy (a Mr Bull) at the windows. 14. At the end of the hearing, when the Chief Magistrate was about to rise to consider her decision, the prosecution advocate (Mr Stott) became aware that Mr Bussetti was not the only person attending the bonfire party who had posted a video of the Grenfell Tower effigy. There had been at least one other, taken by a Mr Hancock. Mr Stott of course immediately informed the court. 15. This discovery caused a degree of consternation, since the hearing had proceeded on the basis that the video shown to the Chief Magistrate was the one which Mr Bussetti admitted having taken. The prosecution conceded that they could not prove that it was the same one. Submissions were made by counsel on each side. We are sympathetic to the difficulties which this last minute development caused to all those involved with the case, especially the judge. 16. The Chief Magistrate gave her judgment in the following terms: “1. As in all criminal cases the burden of proving the case is on the Crown and it is a high one, before I could convict I would have to be sure of the defendant’s guilt. 2. Putting this sort of video on the internet even in a private WhatsApp group could in certain circumstances constitute an offence under section 127 of Communications Act 2003 but in this case the Crown have not discharged the burden upon them. 3. I cannot be sure that the video relied on by the Crown is the one taken by the defendant, ie the message sent by the defendant is the one that has been played to me. I cannot be sure that the cut-out images on the tower were not the defendant and his friends, burnt in a bonfire joke of colossal bad taste. 4. The truly offensive racist remarks and images sent by the defendant to others on a very regular basis cannot fill the holes in the Crown’s case, as abhorrent as they are and as much as they show the sort of person the defendant is. 5. I find therefore that the elements of the case are not proved beyond reasonable doubt and I acquit the defendant. 6. Had these issues been raised at half time, I may well have upheld Mr Summers’ submission of no case. Furthermore, in the light of the recent disclosure provided after the evidence and submissions had finished, had Mr Summers raised an abuse of process argument, that too may have succeeded. 7. Once someone has been charged with an offence, there is sometimes a tendency, and I am not sure whether it is a police or a Crown Prosecution Service tendency, to take the foot off the

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