-2

Julie Sweeney pled guilty to section 181 of the Online Safety Act (OSA) in England, by posting a comment that said “It’s absolutely ridiculous. Don’t protect the mosques. Blow the mosque up with the adults in it.”

But how was the offence made out?

She obviously did not intend for anyone to believe she was going to blow a mosque up or that she was going to get someone else to do so.

I cannot realistically imagine that it was reckless that someone else could believe she was going to blow a mosque up or get someone else to do it either.

So how has this woman been sent to crown court and threatened with remand on the basis of this comment. She isn't making a threat or promising that she will get someone else to carry out a threat. If it was incitement she wasn't charged with incitement.

If she had been charged with incitement there would be a requirement on the prosecution to prove intent to incite violence/ racial hatred.

If Julie Sweeney had pled not guilty would we be looking at a not guilty verdict?

Improve this question
3
  • 3
    Why do you believe they would need to prove an intent to incite? That doesn't seem to be part of the statute at all.
    – bdb484
    Commented Sep 4 at 0:20
  • 1
    "If Julie Sweeney had pled not guilty would we be looking at a not guilty verdict?" - we can only speculate but it seems evident the sentencing judge thought her behaviour was serious enough to warrant immediate custody.
    – Lag
    Commented Sep 4 at 15:28
  • 2
    Would add: 1. The law is widely drawn and recent, with little or no case law. 2. Had the comment been made when there wasn't widespread violent disorder it might have been treated differently by the authorities, which in the UK tend to be more severe during such circumstances.
    – Lag
    Commented Sep 4 at 15:33

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

She was reckless as to whether someone would carry out the threat

While intent is an element under s181, an alternative element is recklessness. In English law, a person is reckless if they take an unjustified risk.

This can be proved subjectively - the person knew they were being reckless - or objectively- a reasonable person would have known the action was reckless. Absent evidence that the convicted knew they were being reckless, the prosecution would rely on the objective test - a reasonable person knows there are wackos out there who might act on the threat. Whether that is proven is a matter for the jury. I don’t know the details but it’s likely the CPS offered a deal - plead guilty to the summary offense or we’ll go for the indictment - that’s not a bad deal to take.

Improve this answer
8
  • Regarding the subjective test: "When arrested, Sweeney told officers: “I’m not being rude but there are a lot of people saying it.”" (source) If she thinks "lot of people saying it", one can infer she thinks one of them may act.
    – UJM
    Commented Sep 4 at 11:38
  • 1
    @Cardgame482 "I wish that reporter would stop writing about my illegal distillery...." is why we have RICO
    – Trish
    Commented Sep 4 at 13:44
  • 3
    @Cardgame482: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
    – Bart van Ingen Schenau
    Commented Sep 4 at 14:22
  • 1
    "Nice mosque you got there, it would be a shame if anything happened to it."
    – Barmar
    Commented Sep 4 at 16:56
  • 1
    I think the real issue is whether a poster on social media could expect that people would do what they say. A well-known celebrity or politician might have an extra duty of care (e.g. Trump is rightfully blamed for the Jan 6 insurrection), but randoms should not have to censor themselves because some crazy person might act on their instructions.
    – Barmar
    Commented Sep 4 at 17:03

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .