Paul Chambers, the Twitter user fined after he cracked a joke about destroying South Yorkshire’s Robin Hood Airport, is to have his case heard yet again following a highly unusual High Court stalemate.
In January 2010, when the airport was closed due to heavy snow, Chambers joked to his girlfriend via Twitter that he would blow the airport up.
“Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!” Chambers tweeted at the time.
The message was circulated to Chambers’ roughly 600 followers, ultimately coming to the notice of airport staff, who took it seriously.
Backed by celebrity campaigners including Stephen Fry and comedian Al Murray, Chambers, who now lives in Northern Ireland, appealed the ruling. He lost an appeal in Doncaster Crown Court in November 2011 and received a second fine.
On 8 February his appeal was heard by a two-judge divisional court of the High Court, but after deliberations Lord Justice Gross and Mr Justice Irwin were unable to reach a decision.
A new hearing has therefore been ordered before three judges, with a date yet to be set. Observers have noted that a split divisional court is highly unusual. As the first case to test what counts as “menace” under the 2003 communications law, however, the outcome is likely to have wide-ranging legal ramifications.
Murray, known for his character The Pub Landlord, said the stalemate had taken Chambers’ supporters by surprise.
“We weren’t expecting to be having to fundraiser again,” he tweeted. “Law = bottomless pit.”
Murray added that the ongoing case is “trampling horribly on [Chambers’] human rights”.
Are you an expert on social networks? Take our quiz.
AI push sees Alphabet's Google saying it will consolidate its AI teams in its Research…
Beijing orders Apple to pull Meta's WhatsApp and Threads from its Chinese App Store over…
Key milestone sees Intel Foundry assemble ASML's new “High NA EUV” lithography tool, to begin…
Oracle's huge AI, Cloud investment in Japan will meet growing local demand and address digital…
People who create sexually explicit ‘deepfakes’ of adults will face prosecution under a new law…
Protest at cloud contract with Israel results in staff firings, in addition to layoffs of…
View Comments
You would have to be seriously gullible and have little understanding of the English language or how it's used to have taken the tweet as anything but a joke.
Unfortunately the 2003 law was made during a period of paranoia and very bad law making by the then Labour government.
'indecent, obscene or menacing character' are so vague and open to interpretation that it was only a matter of time before it would be racking up expensive legal fees.
Perhaps there is a case against Robin Hood airport for wasting police time!
The world is becoming a dangerous place for freedom and rights if tweets like this are completely twisted out of context by the government and use to charge individuals.
All that money, all that time spend in abusing an innocent citizen...THIS is the TRUE face of terrorism.
The issue of the GBP 380 fine is questionable. Maybe it was good since even if the threat was light it should be taken seriously, or maybe not given the evident character of the joke... It's not an easy question and that's why the judges are divided.
What worries me is that he lost his job, which is clearly totally disproportionate compared to whatever minor offense he may have committed. The judges should look into that, whether or not they uphold the verdict and fine. Even if he is found guilty, losing his job was disproportionate damage given the minor nature of the alleged offense.