Length of investigation in malicious communication case.

political analyst

I'm aware of cases in England which it has taken a year or more for police to even decide whether or not to send files to the CPS regarding social-media posts that were allegedly offensive regarding people's characteristics (e.g. ethnicity, religion, gender identity) and thus allegedly in breach of the Communications Act 2003.

If the allegedly offensive post does not include a threat of violence and the suspect is not a holder of public office then, although the maximum sentence is 2 years imprisonment, the case probably would, if there is a decision to prosecute, be tried in a magistrate's court.

In Ireland and, I presume, other common-law jurisdictions, there is a 6-month time-limit on summary prosecutions. Regarding the English cases, one would've assumed that the limit would mean that investigators would have to complete the investigation before 6 months have passed since the complaint was made, regardless of the investigators' general workload. So why would the investigation still be going on after 6 months have passed?

28064212

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127

An information or complaint relating to an offence under this section may be tried by a magistrates' court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland if it is laid or made—
(a)before the end of the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which the offence was committed, and
(b)before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which evidence comes to the knowledge of the prosecutor which the prosecutor considers sufficient to justify proceedings.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058356653/length-of-investigation-in-malicious-communication-case

The 6 month limit applies only to offences which are only tried summarily. If the offence is capable of being tried on indictment, there is no time limit, even if it is eventually tried summarily.

political analyst

This is the case I was thinking of when I typed the OP.

Maya Forstater was investigated for 15 months after a complaint about her June 2023 post about a transgender GP.

She said the Metropolitan Police (the Met) appeared to have "sate" for w months on the CPS's decision that there was no crime committed before informing her on Thursday (14 November) evening, just a day after The Telegraph published a story about her plight.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/15/police-drop-hate-crime-investigation-maya-forstater/

On a separate note, the Guardian found what it believes to be the post that is being investigated in the Allison Pearson case. She had claimed that the photo that she retweeted showed three police officers in London posing for the photo with Hamas supporters.

Actually, the photo was taken in Manchester, the officers are of Greater Manchester Police, not the Met, and the Muslim protesters in the photo are neither antisemitic nor supporters of Hamas. The flag in the photo is of ex-cricketer Imran Khan's party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf.

On Friday (15 November), The Telegraph reported that Pearson deleted the post after her mistake had been pointed out.

The person who made the complaint against Pearson is an ex-public servant who has been trained in criminal law and is neither a Muslim nor in the photo that Pearson had retweeted.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/nov/15/allison-pearson-jew-haters-tweet-is-at-centre-of-telegraphs-row-with-police

Peregrinus

For obvious reasons, there are no rules that say that only the victim of a crime can report it to the police, and in fact large numbers of reports and complaints are made to the police by non-victims.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122855833#Comment_122855833

In relation to Allison Pearson's case, Ian O'Doherty wrote in today's Indo (It's a paywalled article but I'm quoting from it via the print edition of the paper):

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/ian-odoherty-its-easy-to-laugh-at-the-uk-over-its-policing-of-tweets-until-a-knock-comes-to-your-door/a795268848.html

"What was so thoroughly depressing about the Pearson case was the glee it elicited from other journalists who accused her of sending a racist tweet and deserving everything she got. The thing is, they don't know what the tweet was because the details have never been released. And that's the point. What she wrote is irrelevant. That they wouldn't tell her what her transgression was meant to have been is the big issue."

The Guardian said it found what it believes to be the post that is being investigated. The Guardian probably is right about that but it doesn't know for certain.

In criminal proceedings, the prosecution has to let the defence see the evidence. Surely, that means, by default, that, although it stands to reason that the anonymity of the complainant in the Pearson case is preserved, the police should have told Pearson what her transgression was meant to have been, doesn't it?

Furthermore, why do police not regard the imam's sermon in the following case as not having met the threshold to be regarded as being a crime?

https://www.thejc.com/news/imams-destroy-jewish-homes-sermon-is-not-a-crime-say-police-ag1bysjs

Peregrinus

In criminal proceedings, the prosecution has to let the defence see the evidence. Surely, that means, by default, that, although it stands to reason that the anonymity of the complainant in the Pearson case is preserved, the police should have told Pearson what her transgression was meant to have been, doesn't it?

If Pearson were charged with an offence, she would have to be told, obviously.

Prior to bringing a charge, during the investigation phase, the police don't necessarily have to tell suspects or persons of interest the full details of what they, the police, know or suspect or of what charges they are contemplating. There are obvious reasons why the police might want to keep aspects of an investigation confidential.

(In this context its relevant that Pearson presumably knows what tweets she had tweeted. All she had to do was to review her own tweets and think which of them might be construed as racist or islamophobic. That would have been a particular easy task in this case because she presumably recalled that she had deleted a tweet in which she accused people of being "jew haters", an accusation for which she had no justification at all.)

Furthermore, why do police not regard the imam's sermon in the following case as not having met the threshold to be regarded as being a crime?

The answer is in the article to which you link:

A spokesperson for the Met has now told the [Jewish Chronicle] that despite the fact that “many people found the content upsetting… the entire sermon, including the wording, context and narrative have been reviewed and officers concluded that it does not meet the threshold of a crime”.

political analyst

The Pearson investigation is finished. Outcome: No further action.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3rxy8727z2o