Question for legal experts

Andrew1975

Hate mail and the Malicious Communications Act 1988

Hate mail is usually anonymous, but if it can be traced the sender can also be prosecuted under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 which makes it an offence to send a letter or other article which conveys an indecent or grossly offensive message or a threat, or which contains information known to be false, where the purpose of sending it is to cause distress or anxiety.

The category of communications covered by the Malicious Communications Act 1988 has been expanded by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 to cover the sending, delivery or transmission of electronic communications or articles of any description. This new definition will cover hate telephone calls, emails or text messages. The defence to such an offence has also been amended so that it will be necessary to show that a demand made in such a communication was made on reasonable grounds, and the person making it held an honest and reasonable belief that the threat made was a proper means of reinforcing that demand.

marybelle01

Andrew1975 wrote: »

Hate mail and the Malicious Communications Act 1988

Hate mail is usually anonymous, but if it can be traced the sender can also be prosecuted under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 which makes it an offence to send a letter or other article which conveys an indecent or grossly offensive message or a threat, or which contains information known to be false, where the purpose of sending it is to cause distress or anxiety.

The category of communications covered by the Malicious Communications Act 1988 has been expanded by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 to cover the sending, delivery or transmission of electronic communications or articles of any description. This new definition will cover hate telephone calls, emails or text messages. The defence to such an offence has also been amended so that it will be necessary to show that a demand made in such a communication was made on reasonable grounds, and the person making it held an honest and reasonable belief that the threat made was a proper means of reinforcing that demand.

And applies to communications sent to you and communications which fall into a strict category of hate mail. I can't see how it applies although I admit that not being a lawyer I wouldn't know that for a fact. But I do know that illegal is not the same thing as criminal. It is illegal to unfairly dismiss someone but it is not criminal. ISPs challenge governments in court. Somehow I don't see them capitulating to a threatening letter.

But I would still ask - if the employer is corroborating the story that is in these emails, why would they corroborate a lie? What is in it for them when it will only take one potential employer to confirm they have done this and you could sue them? You have obviously made some enemies - why? Why take that risk? It seems like a lot of trouble and risk to go to over an ex employee when "we decline to provide a reference " (quite legal to do that)will do nicely and still cook your goose with potential employers - few people will appoint if the ex employer refuses to provide a reference.

Andrew1975

marybelle01 wrote: »

And applies to communications sent to you and communications which fall into a strict category of hate mail. I can't see how it applies although I admit that not being a lawyer I wouldn't know that for a fact. But I do know that illegal is not the same thing as criminal. It is illegal to unfairly dismiss someone but it is not criminal. ISPs challenge governments in court. Somehow I don't see them capitulating to a threatening letter.

But I would still ask - if the employer is corroborating the story that is in these emails, why would they corroborate a lie? What is in it for them when it will only take one potential employer to confirm they have done this and you could sue them? You have obviously made some enemies - why? Why take that risk? It seems like a lot of trouble and risk to go to over an ex employee when "we decline to provide a reference " (quite legal to do that)will do nicely and still cook your goose with potential employers - few people will appoint if the ex employer refuses to provide a reference.

You have hit the nail on the head - I have enemies - and the fact that I have enemies justifies the risk as I am their enemy. And some people believe they are above te law.

And who said they declined to provide a reference? In fact the ex employer provided a very good reference, which should tell you all you need to know about the legitimacy of the claims in the e-mail.

Another individual source within the ex employer decided to follow their own agenda and invent issues which did not exist. The new employer (I think) listened to this and took action.

Also you have no idea about the claims made in that e-mail and whether or not they constitute hate or not.

marybelle01

And also you are so wrapped up in your own view of this that you didn't actually read what I said! I didn't says the employer had declined a reference - I asked why, if the employer was backing up the story, they didn't just do this. And I also didn't say the mail wasn't nasty, I said that they law has a specific definition of hate mail, and that bit I do know. I also said that the mail wasn't sent to you so the recipient wasn't receiving hate mail. And neither were you because it wasn't sent to you. I am knot trying to help in the limited way I can but you obviously don't want it so I give up.

Andrew1975

marybelle01 wrote: »

And also you are so wrapped up in your own view of this that you didn't actually read what I said! I didn't says the employer had declined a reference - I asked why, if the employer was backing up the story, they didn't just do this. And I also didn't say the mail wasn't nasty, I said that they law has a specific definition of hate mail, and that bit I do know. I also said that the mail wasn't sent to you so the recipient wasn't receiving hate mail. And neither were you because it wasn't sent to you. I am knot trying to help in the limited way I can but you obviously don't want it so I give up.

I think the 'grey areas' of what the employer did or didnt do, and whether or not they should or should not have done or not done on further questioning are removed once we establish that they sent the e-mail in the first place, don't you?

Makes things far easier IMO.

Nicki

Yes. You can compel the ISP to disclose the information you need to bring an action for defamation, but you will need to apply to the court for an Order against them (they will not and cannot do it voluntarily due to Data Protection issues) and there a number of criteria you will need to satisfy before the court will make the order. You will also have to pay all your and all the ISPs costs of this, whether you win or lose, and there is no legal aid available.

The authority for this is Totalise v Motley Fool, and a basic description of the things the court will look at is set out in this article from a UK law journal

http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/bloggers-beware

Andrew1975

Nicki wrote: »

Yes. You can compel the ISP to disclose the information you need to bring an action for defamation, but you will need to apply to the court for an Order against them (they will not and cannot do it voluntarily due to Data Protection issues) and there a number of criteria you will need to satisfy before the court will make the order. You will also have to pay all your and all the ISPs costs of this, whether you win or lose, and there is no legal aid available.

The authority for this is Totalise v Motley Fool, and a basic description of the things the court will look at is set out in this article from a UK law journal

http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/bloggers-beware

Thanks. Given the serious nature of the allegations in the email and the manner in which they arrived at their destination would you say its a potentially criminal rather than civil matter under the Malicious Communications Act?

Nicki

No, I'd have said it is a classic defamation action. However, if you can identify the sender and there are a series of them, you might be able to persuade the police to take action under the Protection from Harassment legislation, which is a criminal matter, and obviously a lot cheaper than bringing a defamation action (particularly as it is most unlikely that the person you want to sue could pay any sustantial amount of damages to you AND cover your court costs, so you would end up significantly out of pocket by going down that route.

Andrew1975

Nicki wrote: »

No, I'd have said it is a classic defamation action. However, if you can identify the sender and there are a series of them, you might be able to persuade the police to take action under the Protection from Harassment legislation, which is a criminal matter, and obviously a lot cheaper than bringing a defamation action (particularly as it is most unlikely that the person you want to sue could pay any sustantial amount of damages to you AND cover your court costs, so you would end up significantly out of pocket by going down that route.

And what about the person being impersonated, would you recommend a joint action against the impersonator, or should they be addressing their issue separately?

Nicki

Yes do it separately.