The Crocels Trolling Academy

Centre for Research into Online Communities and E-Learning Systems

The Institute of Life Sciences, Swansea University, Singleton Park,
Swansea, West Wales & The Valleys, SA2 8PP, Wales, GB.
Telephone: 01792 345105 Web: www.trollingacademy.org
12 October 2012

Keir Starmer QC (DPP)
Crown Prosecution Service
Rose Court
2 Southwark Bridge
London
SE1 9HS

Dear Mr Starmer,
Re: Internet trolling guidance
I write further to your interview with BBC Online where you discuss the need for clear and
fair guidance on when prosecutions should be brought and when they shouldnt. The Crocels
Trolling Academy agrees with this and believes there should be either a statutory
deminimis doctrine or a rule of reason arising out of case law. We currently have the
following paper pending publication in the International Review of Law Computers and
Technology:
Bishop, J. (In Press). The Art of Trolling Law Enforcement: A Review and Model for
implementing 'flame trolling' legislation enacted in Great Britain (1981-2012). International
Review of Law, Computers and Technology.
In this paper we have devised a framework that suggests how we think it would be most
fair to use the current legal system to prosecute trolling. We introduce a Trolling
Magnitude Scale to judge the severity of trolling, based on its immediacy and the effort
taken to commit an act. This framework is presented at the end of this letter.
We are currently working with the Youth Offending Service to extend this framework so that
there is a separate regime for youths, where it might not be in the long term interests of
society for them to be criminalised with the full force of the law, as one might argue in the
case of Reece Messer and Matthew Woods. We suggest one should think that young people
are impressionable even in their 20s, and an unfair meeting with the police can mean an
irreparable lifetime of resentment of the state and authority.
I also attach an article which discusses how we would have applied the law in the case of
Matthew Woods by applying the dedicated trolling case law in DPP v Collins, DPP v Connolly
and DPP v Chambers. We hope you find our findings helpful and we would be willing to work
with your further in investigating thresholds for using trolling law.
With best regards,

Jonathan Bishop LLM FBCS CITP
The Trolling Magnitude Scale Guidelines for using laws for Internet trolling

TM Trolling type Severity Flow/Involveme
nt
Appropriate legal provision
1 Playtime
(In the
moment and
quickly
regret)
Minor

(TM 1.00-
1.49)
High Flow / Low
Involvement
Fixed penalty notice 75
Major

(TM 1.50-
1.99)
Med Flow / Low
Involvement
Fixed Penalty Notice 150
2 Tactical
(In the
moment but
dont regret
and
continue)
Minor

(2.00-2.49)
Med Flow / High
Involvement
Common law detention for
breach of the peace as permitted
by s.40(1) of the Public Order Act
1986.
Major

(TM2.50-
2.99)
High Flow / High
Involvement
ASBO under s.1 the Crime and
Disorder Act 1998, subject to
s.1c for youths.
3 Strategic
(Go out of
way to cause
problems,
but without
a sustained
and long-
term
campaign)
Minor

(TM 3.00-
3.49)
High Flow, Med
involvement
Harassment warning under the
Protection from Harassment Act
1997.
Major

(TM 3.50-
3.99)
High Flow, Med
Involvement
Custodial sentences of no more
than 56 days under
Public Order Act or 18 weeks
under the Malicious
Communications Act.
4 Domination
(Goes out of
the way to
create rich
media to
target one of
more specific
individuals)
Minor

(TM4.0-4.49)
Low Flow, Med
Involvement
Restraining order under s.5 of
the Protection from Harassment
Act 1997.
Major

(TM4.50-
4.99)
Low Flow, High
Involvement
Custodial sentence under s.127
of the Communications Act
2003, of between 2 and four
years.


R v Woods (Matthew) When is a joke grossly offensive?
Reposted from: http://www.trollingacademy.org/online-safety-sociability/1083/matthew-woods-facebook-troll-case-report-analysis/
Recently, a youth, Matthew Woods, aged only 20, was jailed for 12 weeks for writing offensive jokes
about April Jones, a 5-year-old girl, feared dead, which he posted to his Facebook profile.
Most of us would agree that if every post we made on Facebook was scrutinised that there would probably
be some offence or other we could get done for.
It might not be what others want to hear, but Im convinced Matthew Woods was innocent of the charges
against him, and that it is others who should be prosecuted if April Joness family were offended by the
remarks.
As far as I understand it, Matthew Woods posted the offensive joke to his own private Facebook Wall after
getting the idea from a public website, called Sickipedia, where offensive jokes, worse than his, are posted
for the public to see.
One can apply the case of DPP v Connolly, which defined grossly offensive Woods was prosecuted for
sending a grossly offensive message. This case says as message is only grossly offensive if the intended
recipients of the message would be grossly offended. As Woods is likely to only have intended for his
friends to see it then he should have been found not guilty under Section 127 of the Communications Act
2003. If anyone were to be prosecuted, it should be those whom shared the posts with other people,
including the newspapers who repeated them online.
Applying DPP v Collins, as the subject of the offensive posts April Jones would be unlikely to be
grossly offended by them as a 5 year old, then again Woods should not have been found guilty. It is
unlikely that assuming April Jones is found alive that when she gets older she would know anything of
Woods postings if he had not been prosecuted. But now, as they are published for everyone to see in
Internet archives, she will find out and be offended. Again, the websites who repost these offensive jokes
could be committing a worse act than Woods when April Jones is able to read them herself in later life.
Applying Chambers v DPP, then in order to be grossly offensive the offensive joke would have to cause
apprehension. As it would not have caused apprehension to April Joness family if people hadnt shared
the post over the Internet beyond Woods friends, then had this case been applied Woods should not have
been found guilty. The person whose republication of Woods message caused April Joness family
apprehension is the one who should have been prosecuted and not Woods!

Jonathan Bishop
The Crocels Trolling Academy
The Institute of Life Sciences
Swansea University
Singleton Park
Swansea, SA2 8PP

Dear Mr Bishop
SOCIAL MEDIA -INTERNET TROLLING GUIDANCE
CPS
25 October 2012
Thank for your letter of 12 October 2012 addressed to Keir Starmer QC, the Director of
Public Prosecutions, regarding his announcement that the CPS intends to issue guidelines on
social media cases for prosecutors to assist them in deciding whether criminal charges should
be brought in the cases that arise for their consideration.
Your comments and framework document, IA Trolling Magnitude Scale', will be considered
during the preparation of the interim guidelines which will be subject to a wide public
consultation before they are finalised and published.
We would welcome any further comments you may have on interim guidelines as part of
that consultation process. We will send you a link to the interim guidelines consultation
doctlment once it is launched on the CPS website.
Yours sincerely

Lucy Barker
Policy Advisor
Strategy & Policy Directorate
Strategy &. Policy Directorate, Crown Prosecution Service. Rose Court, 2 Southwark Bridge. London SE I 9HS
WWW.Cps.gov.uk