Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. DPP v Bussetti risk at the time of sending the message that it may create fear or apprehension in any reasonable member of the public who reads or sees it. We would merely emphasise that even expressed in these terms, the mental element of the offence is directed exclusively to the state of the mind of the offender, and that if he may have intended the message as a joke, even if a poor joke in bad taste, it is unlikely that the mens rea required before conviction for the offence of sending a message of a menacing character will be established. The appeal against conviction will be allowed on the basis that this tweet did not constitute or include a message of a menacing character; we cannot usefully take this aspect of the appeal further.” Question 2: Should the Chief Magistrate have held that the video taken by the Defendant was similar in content to the video which had been played in court? 32. Mr McGuinness submits that in the case stated, even as amended, the Chief Magistrate did not address the relevance or significance of the interview, the formal Admissions or the Respondent’s own evidence. He also questions the significance of her observation that Mr Bussetti’s video might have been shorter or longer than the one she had seen. We agree that it is difficult to see why that was relevant. The video which was uploaded by a person unknown to YouTube, played in the Magistrates’ Court and viewed by us as an attachment to the case stated is just over three minutes in length. In the course of those three minutes the effigy depicting Grenfell Tower with the name “Grenfell” at the top is brought out of a house, placed on a brazier, set alight and consumed by fire. Similarly, it is difficult to see the materiality of the observation that the content or quality of the soundtrack might have been different. More importantly, the significance of the defendant’s admissions in interview and the formal admissions at trial were not dealt with. 33. The response of Mr Summers, as strikingly set out at the start of his and Ms Davies’ written submissions, is that “the key to understanding the decision under appeal is racism”. Mr Summers submitted that the Crown’s case below was that the video was grossly offensive because it contained racist comments and images. He argued that racism was the basis on which the Chief Magistrate allowed what he described as “highly prejudicial” bad character evidence of other racist communications, and the basis upon which the case was permitted to proceed past “half time”. The judge’s decision to acquit was justified because (1) the Crown could not show that the video shown in court was the one sent by Mr Bussetti; and (2) the judge was then unable to conclude that the unseen video contained the “necessary racist elements (images and utterances) which had sustained the prosecution case”. 34. I do not accept that this is an adequate answer to the prosecution argument relating to Question 2 of the case stated. Section 127(1)(a) of the 2003 Act does not require any element of racism. The question was whether Mr Bussetti had sent via WhatsApp a message which he intended to be, or which he was aware might be, grossly offensive to members of the public, in particular members of the Grenfell community, who saw it. Not all the victims of the Grenfell Tower disaster were from ethnic minorities, though many were. Indeed, we have not been told, either in the case stated or in argument, the ethnicity of the two witnesses, Ms Ruiz and Mr Taylor, who gave written evidence in the court below that they had found the video grossly offensive. Mr Taylor said that the