Previous 4 / 19 Next

Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. DPP v Bussetti 17. He said 'it was just stupidness really. Everyone was, er, had a drink, but yeah it was just complete stupidness'. 18. He was asked, 'And how do you feel afterwards?'. He replied, 'Sick. It's not great. Terrible.' He was asked, 'Why were you filming it in the first place'. He replied, ‘I’ve no idea'. He was asked, 'What did you intend?'. He said, 'l dunno. No idea. Just don't know. One of those stupid moments'. 19. He denied any intention for the video to go viral, or for it to support any agenda. 20. He was asked, 'What do you think other people would think about the incident if they saw it?' He replied, 'Oh it was shocking'. He was asked, 'What about the people that survived the Grenfell Tower fire?'. He replied, 'Even more yeah, terrified, terrified.'” 10. A video of the effigy being burned was played in court. We have seen it too. The soundtrack includes a number of clearly audible remarks. Someone cries out “help me, help me”. Someone says “The little ninja’s getting it”, which the prosecution alleged was a clearly racist comment. Another replies “That’s what happens when they don’t pay their rent”. Each of these and other comments is greeted with loud laughter. It is inexplicable what some people find funny, but behaving in a tasteless and insensitive manner on private premises is not a criminal offence. 11. The prosecution adduced written statements from two witnesses, Ms Ruiz and Mr Taylor, which the Chief Magistrate described in the case stated as follows: “I heard evidence read from two witnesses, Ms Ruiz and Mr Taylor about the trauma of the Grenfell fire and the effect of seeing the film on YouTube. Ms Ruiz was traumatised by the video of the effigy with the cut-out figures and what she heard said. She mentioned in particular hearing it said ‘that is what happens when you don’t pay rent’ and ‘stay in the flat’. She had never experienced hate like that before. She questioned how it was that the people watching the effigy burn could think it funny. Mr Taylor said the stereotyping of the people in the tower was awful. The video was horrendous to see. It was an attack on the Grenfell community.” 12. The prosecution also applied to adduce evidence of racist text messages and other material found on the Defendant’s mobile phone when it was seized by the police. The Chief Magistrate allowed the application on the basis that the evidence was “relevant to mens rea and was important explanatory evidence”. She noted that the Crown’s case was that the video of the bonfire had been sent because the Defendant was a racist. The bad character evidence was held to be relevant (a) to intention, (b) to the Defendant’s awareness of the risk that it would be grossly offensive and, (c) as to motive. 13. The Defendant gave evidence and said that the cut-out models shown in the video depicted his friends. He was understandably cross-examined as to why he had never

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