Previous 3 / 19 Next

Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. DPP v Bussetti 4. At or around 8:57 pm on 3 November 2018 the defendant sent the video to two WhatsApp groups using his telephone, one containing approximately 14 people, and one containing approximately 6 people.” 9. The Chief Magistrate also had before her an agreed summary of Mr Bussetti’s interview by the police on the morning of 6 November 2018. The summary noted that he had been cautioned and informed of his legal rights and declined the services of a solicitor. The summary included:5. Mr Bussetti had filmed the Grenfell Tower effigy burning and sent it to a WhatsApp group, but had not put it online on Twitter or Facebook. 6. He had not taken any photos or videos of any other effigies at the party, except maybe a photograph of his own. He had not shared any videos or photographs of any effigies other than the Grenfell Tower one. 7. The WhatsApp group he had sent the video to had 14 people in it, and was his ‘football lot’. 8. When he had handed himself in, the police had seized from him the telephone that he had used to take the film and send it to WhatsApp (an iPhone 8). 9. He thought he had deleted all the videos of Grenfell Tower that were on the phone. 10.He thought he had sent the video to another WhatsApp group called 'Holiday Group', which had maybe 6 people in it. 11 . Mr Bussetti was shown the video of the Grenfell Tower effigy burning that the police had obtained open source, i.e. from the widely accessible internet. He said he believed it was his recording. 12. He was asked why he had sent it to a WhatsApp group. He said, 'no idea, just drinking, I dunno, can't remember' . 13. Mr Bussetti watched the video and, when asked, identified by name a number of people who could be seen or heard on the video. 14. He was asked, 'So, looking back at that footage, what did you think of it?'. He replied, ‘terrible’. 15. He was asked, 'Do you think that could be quite, sort of, offensive to people?'. He replied, 'Er, definitely'. 16. He was asked 'Is it offensive to you, having looked at it, back again?'. He replied, 'it is bad, it's bad, yeah'.

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: 30 de jul. de 2021

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Reversed and Remanded

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Judgment in Favor of Defendant

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 Name and URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: 19 de jul. de 2024

Primary Documents

Judgment
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Bussetti

Primary Documents

Notifications