Read on Twitter
This is an important judgment on the narrow ambit of section 127(2)(c) of the Communications Act 2003. I think it is most pithily expressed by Lord Justice Bean in a statement which may reassure many people on this platform (and some of my followers!)... https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Scottow-v-CPS-judgment-161220.pdf
Section 127(2)(c) is not a form of "harassment lite" to be used to prosecute people who send annoying tweets to others
Not to be used to criminalise expression which is annoying or causes anxiety - unless it is done for that purpose (I know, not particularly clear but it's a bad law as I have been saying for years)
The judge got Article 10 (freedom of speech) analysis wrong and seemed to think that a criminal conviction was merited for "acts of unkindness, and calling others names and such acts could only be justified if they made a contribution to "proper debate". This is surely correct
Important section
The court was *not impressed* by the width of the interim injunction granted
I am not here making any judgment on the tweets - but as I have often said here we should be extremely cautious before criminalising speech, even speech we find offensive, annoying, upsetting... the right to freedom of speech includes the right to say things others find offensive
