Airport tweet man wins case on appeal

A man found guilty of sending a menacing tweet has won his challenge against conviction.

Paul Chambers, 28, was fined £385 (€491) and ordered to pay £600 (€765) costs at Doncaster Magistrates’ Court in May 2010 after being convicted of sending “a message of a menacing character”, contrary to provisions of the 2003 Communications Act.

He said he sent the tweet to his 600 followers in a moment of frustration after Robin Hood Airport in South Yorkshire was closed by snow in January 2010, and never thought anyone would take his “silly joke” seriously.

It read: “Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your s*** together, otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!”

But, in November 2010, Crown Court judge Jacqueline Davies, sitting with two magistrates, dismissed his appeal, saying that the electronic communication was “clearly menacing” and that airport staff were sufficiently concerned to report it.

Today, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, sitting with Mr Justice Owen and Mr Justice Griffith Williams, said: “We have concluded that, on an objective assessment, the decision of the Crown Court that this ’tweet’ constituted or included a message of a menacing character was not open to it.

“On this basis, the appeal against conviction must be allowed.”

Mr Chambers, who has received backing from celebrities such as broadcaster Stephen Fry and comedian Al Murray, said later: ``I am relieved, vindicated - it is ridiculous it ever got this far.

“I want to thank everyone who has helped, including everyone on Twitter.”

His counsel, John Cooper QC, had told the judges it was obvious the tweet, which was sent by someone who did not hide his identity, was a joke.

It was certainly not sent in the context of terrorism and it was wrong for the Crown Court to make such an association.

He said: “If that be the case, and I don’t mean to be flippant, John Betjeman would be concerned when he said ’Come, friendly bombs, and fall on Slough’, or Shakespeare when he said ’Let’s kill all the lawyers’.”

The judges noted there was no evidence before the Crown Court to suggest any of the followers of the “tweet”, or anyone else who may have seen it posted on Mr Chambers’ timeline, found it to be of a menacing character or, at a time when the threat of terrorism was real, even minimally alarming.

In fact, nothing was done about it by anyone until five days later when the duty manager responsible for security at the airport, while off duty at home, found it.

Robert Smith QC, for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), had said that, on any view, Mr Chambers, of Corby, Northamptonshire, a man of previous good character who worked as an administration and finance supervisor, was “very foolish” to do what he did.

He said the question was, by whose standards and by what members of society would such a message be viewed as a joke, given that those who had access to it would probably not have any knowledge of the circumstances which led to it being sent?

Stephen Fry welcomed the "complete vindication and victory'' for Mr Chambers following today's ruling.

The broadcaster and comedian, who stood alongside Mr Chambers during an earlier appeal hearing, took to Twitter to congratulate him and his legal team.

The star, who is taking a break from the social networking site, wrote: “Pops head up quickly: complete vindication and victory for Paul Chambers in twitterjoketrial. Well done DavidAllenGreen and team. Bye!”

Fellow comedian Al Murray, who was in court for the ruling, wrote on Twitter “He’s won”, before adding: “Colossal relief here in court. Short and sweet.”

In the ruling, Lord Judge said the 2003 Act, which came into force before Twitter was invented, did not create ``some newly-minted interference with the first of President Roosevelt's essential freedoms - freedom of speech and expression.

“Satirical, or iconoclastic, or rude comment, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it should and no doubt will continue at their customary level, quite undiminished by this legislation.

“Given the submissions by Mr Cooper, we should perhaps add that for those who have the inclination to use Twitter for the purpose, Shakespeare can be quoted unbowdlerised, and with Edgar, at the end of King Lear, they are free to speak not what they ought to say, but what they feel.”

The more one reflected on it, he added, the clearer it became that the message did not represent a terrorist threat, or any other form of threat, but was a “conversation piece” for Mr Chambers’ followers.

It was not sent to anyone at the airport or anyone responsible for airport security, or any form of public security.

The language and punctuation were inconsistent with the writer intending it to be, or to be taken as, a serious warning.

There was no urgent response to it from the airport and police action was “not exactly hurried”.

Lord Judge said that, while proper respect must be paid to the Crown Court’s finding, that did not address the unbroken pattern of evidence to be derived from the responses of those who read the message, and no weight appeared to have been given to the lack of urgency which characterised the approach of the authorities.

Outside court, Mr Chambers said that as a result of the prosecution he had lost two jobs and become “unemployable”.

“It’s been two-and-a-half years. At the moment I’m just feeling relieved. The Lord Chief Justice just seemed to get it.”

He added: “It’s an important decision as far as social networks are concerned and as far as Twitter is concerned.

“It has established that there has to be an action that is menacing and is intended to be menacing.

“It’s a very big decision for people doing what human beings do – telling a joke sometimes, even if it’s a bad one.”

Comedian Murray, who arrived to lend his support, said the case had been “ridiculous”.

“In 100 years there will be an operetta about this – about how ridiculous we were at the start of the 21st century. I’m a big fan of absurdity but this is taking the biscuit.”

He added: “Paul was doing what we all do sometimes in the heat of the moment.”

Murray and Tory MP Louise Mensch were among Mr Chambers’ supporters gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice after the hearing.

Murray added: “There are 10 million people on Twitter. Freedom of speech is something we take for granted in this country. This judgment affected the freedom of speech of 10 million people, not just Paul.

That’s why it’s so important.

“The judgment shows this should never have come to trial and has been a terrific waste of money and time.”

After the hearing, Mr Chambers said he felt “relieved” and was grateful for the support from Twitter users which raised awareness of his case.

He said: “All the supporters, everyone on Twitter who sent lovely messages, they are all as important as the celebrities.

“It doesn’t matter if it is social media or not, the law should be applied as the law should be applied – with common sense. Twitter is no different.”