Racist content on US server 'within UK jurisdiction'

Court of Appeal rules it's our problem


The law of England and Wales applies to material published online, even if it is hosted on a server in another country, the Court of Appeal has ruled. As long as a substantial measure of the activities takes place in England, its law will apply, it said.

Two men's appeals against convictions for publishing racially inflammatory material were based on their claim that the law of England and Wales should not apply because the material in question was hosted on a server in California in the US.

The Court of Appeal rejected that claim, saying that according to a precedent set in a previous case domestic law will apply so long as much of the activity in question took place in the UK.

The original trial judge said that that previous case, in which the Crown took a case against Wallace Duncan Smith, meant "that the Crown Court had jurisdiction to try the appellants for their conduct because a substantial measure of the activities constituting the crime took place in England," according to the Court of Appeal.

"It seems to us that the substantial measure test not only accords with the purpose of the relevant provisions of the [Companies Act at issue in that previous case] it also reflects the practicalities of the present case," said Lord Justice Scott Baker in his ruling.

Stephen Whittle had been found to have written a number of articles that were derogatory of Jewish and black people and likely to stir up racial hatred. They were edited and put online by Simon Guy Sheppard.

Lord Justice Scott Baker agreed with the original trial court's analysis that this activity was within the jurisdiction of English law.

"The judge pointed out that the material complained of was prepared in England and Wales, was uploaded onto the website from England and Wales and that this must have been done by Sheppard in the knowledge and with the expectation and intent that the material should be available to the public or a section of it within the jurisdiction in England and Wales," he ruled. "He noted there were references to postage for people living in England and Wales should they wish to have the materials sent to them by post. Thus it was in the contemplation of Sheppard that people in England and Wales should have access to the material which he posted on the website."

The Court of Appeal also ruled that the material constituted 'writing' and so was covered by the Public Order Act, which contains the offences of publishing racially inflammatory material. Just because it was on the internet did not mean that it did not count as 'written material' covered by the Act, the ruling said.

"Whilst in 1986 the world-wide web was a thing of the future and computers were in their infancy it seems to us clear that 'written material' is plainly wide enough to cover the material disseminated by the website in the present case," said the judgment. "The judge took the same view. He said that what was on the computer screen was first of all in writing or written and secondly that the electronically stored data which is transmitted also comes within the definition of written material because it is written material stored in another form. He drew a comparison with opening and closing a book; when the book is open you can see the writing; when it is closed you cannot."

Lawyers for the two men also argued that there was no actual 'publication' of the material because there was no actual proof that anybody had read it. The Court of Appeals dismissed this claim.

"[The original trial] judge put it correctly when he said that what the Crown had to show was that there was publication to the public or a section of the public in that the material was generally accessible to all or available to or was placed before or offered to the public and that that could be proved by the evidence of one or more witnesses," said Lord Justice Scott Baker.

"The point that there cannot be publication without a publishee is in our judgment fundamentally misconceived," he said. "It is based on an irrelevant comparison with the law of libel. Libel is a tort or civil wrong where it is necessary for the claimant to prove that the words complained of were published of him and were defamatory of him … the offences of displaying, distributing or publishing racially inflammatory written material do not require proof that anybody actually read or heard the material."

See: The ruling

Copyright © 2010, OUT-LAW.com

OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.


Other stories you might like

  • AMD claims its GPUs beat Nvidia on performance per dollar
    * Terms, conditions, hardware specs and software may vary – a lot

    As a slowdown in PC sales brings down prices for graphics cards, AMD is hoping to win over the market's remaining buyers with a bold, new claim that its latest Radeon cards provide better performance for the dollar than Nvidia's most recent GeForce cards.

    In an image tweeted Monday by AMD's top gaming executive, the chip designer claims its lineup of Radeon RX 6000 cards provide better performance per dollar than competing ones from Nvidia, with all but two of the ten cards listed offering advantages in the double-digit percentages. AMD also claims to provide better performance for the power required by each card in all but two of the cards.

    Continue reading
  • Google opens the pod doors on Bay View campus
    A futuristic design won't make people want to come back – just ask Apple

    After nearly a decade of planning and five years of construction, Google is cutting the ribbon on its Bay View campus, the first that Google itself designed.

    The Bay View campus in Mountain View – slated to open this week – consists of two office buildings (one of which, Charleston East, is still under construction), 20 acres of open space, a 1,000-person event center and 240 short-term accommodations for Google employees. The search giant said the buildings at Bay View total 1.1 million square feet. For reference, that's less than half the size of Apple's spaceship. 

    The roofs on the two main buildings, which look like pavilions roofed in sails, were designed that way for a purpose: They're a network of 90,000 scale-like solar panels nicknamed "dragonscales" for their layout and shimmer. By scaling the tiles, Google said the design minimises damage from wind, rain and snow, and the sloped pavilion-like roof improves solar capture by adding additional curves in the roof. 

    Continue reading
  • Pentester pops open Tesla Model 3 using low-cost Bluetooth module
    Anything that uses proximity-based BLE is vulnerable, claim researchers

    Tesla Model 3 and Y owners, beware: the passive entry feature on your vehicle could potentially be hoodwinked by a relay attack, leading to the theft of the flash motor.

    Discovered and demonstrated by researchers at NCC Group, the technique involves relaying the Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) signals from a smartphone that has been paired with a Tesla back to the vehicle. Far from simply unlocking the door, this hack lets a miscreant start the car and drive away, too.

    Essentially, what happens is this: the paired smartphone should be physically close by the Tesla to unlock it. NCC's technique involves one gadget near the paired phone, and another gadget near the car. The phone-side gadget relays signals from the phone to the car-side gadget, which forwards them to the vehicle to unlock and start it. This shouldn't normally happen because the phone and car are so far apart. The car has a defense mechanism – based on measuring transmission latency to detect that a paired device is too far away – that ideally prevents relayed signals from working, though this can be defeated by simply cutting the latency of the relay process.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022