Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. DPP v Bussetti similar in content to the video shown and subsequently uploaded onto YouTube by a person unknown? 3. In all the circumstances was I required to consider whether the content contained in a video I could not be sure I had seen was grossly offensive to members of the public or victims of the Grenfell tragedy?” 19. The DPP did not pursue question 1 but did pursue questions 2 and 3. He took issue with some of the wording of the case stated and applied to this court for a direction that it should be amended. That application was heard by Carr LJ and Jeremy Baker J on 29 October 2020. This court directed that the case stated be amended in a number of respects, of which the most important were set out at paragraphs 27, 28, 32, 33 and 37 of the judgment of Carr LJ:“27 I consider that the Case Stated in its current form does not summarise the evidence which formed the basis of the Chief Magistrate’s factual conclusion that, without seeing the video recording taken by the Respondent, she could not be sure that it was, in fact, similar in content to the video recording shown and, subsequently, uploaded on to YouTube. Paragraph 2 simply records an outline of the contents of the video recording recovered from YouTube and then only in the briefest of terms. Paragraph 9 simply records the Chief Magistrate’s ruling, at the conclusion of the prosecution case, not to dismiss the case at that stage. The prosecution case, however, on the question of whether or not the material was grossly offensive, is, in my judgment, not limited to those material features summarised in para.9 of the Case Stated; the prosecution would not be limited in its submissions on that question at the conclusion of trial. 28 I consider, therefore, the case needs to be amended to summarise the evidence which formed the basis of the Chief Magistrate’s conclusion in this regard and her reasons for it. The simple point is that this court does not yet know the basis for her statement in para.21 of the Case Stated that there simply was no other evidence. In light of the admissions, the interview given by the Respondent and the evidence that he gave at trial, these are matters which would benefit from clarification. ... 32 It seems to me that there can be no question but that the relevant admissions that were in evidence, together with the agreed summary of the Respondent’s interview under caution three days after the bonfire party, must be incorporated in the Case Stated for consideration by this court when hearing the appeal. The DPP’s case could not fairly or properly be considered without them. The Respondent agreed that he took a video recording of the burning of the effigy. He stated in interview that he believed that the video recording from