Casserly, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 25 (23 January 2024)

Casserly, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 25 (23 January 2024)

The conviction was unsafe because the judge failed to direct the jury adequately on the requirements of freedom of expression, the enhanced protection for political speech, and the need for a proportionality assessment under Article 10 ECHR. The directions did not reflect the high threshold for criminalising...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Crim 25
Parties
Respondent: Rex; Appellant: Thomas Casserly
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction From Crown Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Malicious Communications, Freedom of Expression, Article 10 ECHR, Proportionality, Political Speech
Criminal Law Human Rights Malicious Communications Freedom of Expression Article 10 ECHR Proportionality Political Speech

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Thomas Casserly

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction From Crown Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction under s 1(1)(b) Malicious Communications Act 1988 was compatible with Article 10 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the judge's directions to the jury adequately reflected the requirements of freedom of expression and proportionality
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution and conviction were proportionate interferences with the appellant's rights

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was unsafe because the judge failed to direct the jury adequately on the requirements of freedom of expression, the enhanced protection for political speech, and the need for a proportionality assessment under Article 10 ECHR. The directions did not reflect the high threshold for criminalising political speech or the requirement that the defendant's purpose must be to cause distress or anxiety. The absence of these directions rendered the conviction unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed

Orders

  • Conviction quashed
  • No order on sentence appeal due to conviction being quashed