Jonathan Bishop Expert Report For CPS

Jonathan Bishop
Chartered IT Professional Fellow

The ILS Building, PO Box 674
Singleton Park, Swansea, SA1 9NN
jonathan.bishop@trollingacademy.org
28 February 2013
EXPERT REPORT
PREPARED AT THE REQUEST OF: Director of Public Prosecutions
Prepared By Jonathan Bishop LLM FBCS CITP
IN RESPONSE TO
Interim guidelines on prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media
Qualifications
BSc(Hons), MSc, MScEcon, LLM,
ACLIP, MIET, MIEEE, FRSA, FBCS, CITP
07092 107212
@jonathanbishop
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BRIEF CURRICULUM VITAE ................................................................................................................................................................... 4
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 4
INSTRUCTIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 4
ISSUES............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
CHRONOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................................ 6
The 12 Types of Internet Troller ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Lurkers and Elders ........................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Flirts and Snerts ................................................................................................................................................................................. 7
Trolls and Big Men .......................................................................................................................................................................... 8
MHBFY Jennies and E-Vengers ................................................................................................................................................ 8
Wizards and Iconoclasts ............................................................................................................................................................... 9
Chatroom Bobs and Rippers ...................................................................................................................................................... 9
The Four Severities and Strategies of Internet Trolling .................................................................................................... 10
Cyber-Bantering (Magnitude 1 Trolling) ........................................................................................................................... 12
Cyber-Trickery (Magnitude 2 Trolling) ................................................................................................................................ 13
Cyber-Bullying (Magnitude 3 Trolling) ............................................................................................................................... 13
Cyber-Hickery (Magnitude 4 Trolling) ................................................................................................................................ 13
Where trollers troll Genres of online community .......................................................................................................... 14
The Personal Homepage .......................................................................................................................................................... 15
Message Boards ............................................................................................................................................................................ 15
Email Lists and Newsletters ...................................................................................................................................................... 15
Chat Groups .................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Virtual Worlds ................................................................................................................................................................................. 15
Weblogs and Directories .......................................................................................................................................................... 16
Wikis and Hypertext Fiction ..................................................................................................................................................... 16
OPINION ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Premises .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 16
The Public Interest Test .................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Public Interest Disclosures ........................................................................................................................................................ 17
Offences against Police Officers, Celebrities and Politicians .................................................................................... 17
Qualifications
Consideration of Youth Issues ................................................................................................................................................ 17

European Union Implications................................................................................................................................................. 18
Suggested investigation protocols and evidence requirements for Electronic Message Faults ................ 18
Test for actus reus ....................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Test for malum reus ................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Test for pertinax reus ................................................................................................................................................................. 20
Appropriate Sentencing and Fining ......................................................................................................................................... 21
Towards a harmonisation of criminal and civil law in relation to electronic message faults ....................... 21
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 22
EXPERTS DECLARATION .................................................................................................................................................................... 23
STATEMENT OF TRUTH .................................................................................................................................................................. 23
Appendix I Framework for dealing with Internet trolling ............................................................................................... 24
Qualifications
BRIEF CURRICULUM VITAE

My qualifications in terms of multimedia and information systems are vast. I have a BSc(Hons) in
Multimedia Studies, MSc in E-Learning and MScEcon in information systems. Importantly I also possess a
LLM in EU Law, where my thesis was on the effects of EU Law on the E-Learning Industry. I am a
Chartered IT Professional Fellow of BCS The Chartered Institute for IT and a member of its Law
specialist group.
I first published on Internet trolling in an IGI Global book in 2008, followed by a review of New Labours
data misuse laws in 2010. Since then I have had legal analyses of trolling law published by Westlaw, the
Oxford Statute Law Review, The International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, and the
International Journal of Cyber Criminology. In January 2013 I has the book, Examining the Concepts,
Issues and Implications of Internet Trolling published by IGI Global.
I currently run The Trolling Academy at Swansea University (www.trollingacademy.org), and am
developing a travel website called The Trollers Guide (www.trollersguide.com). I also have a personal
website, dedicated in part to my work around trolling (www.jonathanbishop.com). I also run Crocels
News (www.crocels.info).
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
The summary of the conclusions is as follows:
The foremost consideration in determining which remedy if any should be used for a reported
incident of trolling should be whether it is in the public interest. The fact that members of the
public are outraged at the defendant or the police for instance has no bearing on determining
public interest. This report recommends the public interest test considering how much
someone was injured by the fault (malum reus) and how frequently they offend or are likely to
reoffend (pertinax reus). Issues over mens reus should be disregarded as per DPP v Chambers,
and actus reus (guilty) needs a prima facie case before considering the others.
Clear guidance in how to apply DPP v Connolly, DPP v Collins, and DPP v Chambers will make it
easier for police to determine whether bring a case is in the public interest, meaning they will
not need more time, nor indeed waste time, in dealing with reported electronic message faults.
INSTRUCTIONS
Please answer the consultation questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Do you agree with the approach set out in paragraph 12 to initially assessing offences which
may have been committed using social media?
Do you agree with the threshold in bringing a prosecution under section 127 of the
Communications Act 2003 or section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988?
Do you agree with the public interest factors set out in paragraph 39?
Are there any other public interest factors that you think should also be included?
Qualifications
5.
Do you have any further comments on the interim policy on prosecuting cases involving social
media?
ISSUES
In responding to the Director of Public Prosecutions interim guidelines I have considered the following:
How is it best to understand the types of users most likely to commit electronic message faults
How can the severities of EMFts be gauged to priortise resources.
What issues must be considered in relation to a public interest test
What specific considerations should be made for cases involving EMFts
CHRONOLOGY
Internet trolling as a term to reflect provocative postings on the Internet probably arose out of the
glamorisation of the Top Gun film in the 1980s. The phrase trolling for MIGs referred to trying to
provoke an opposing fighter pilot into a dog fight (like a flame war, on-going abuse) or make them
attack so they can be attacked back.
Social media as a term likely emerged following the popular use of social bookmarking systems when
other words, like social networks or online communities failed to capture these systems where there
was not always the option to give feedback on others posts. On that basis it is not possible to troll on all
forms of social media in response to others, only in these cases via ones own posts.
The Communications Act 2003 was introduced at a time when there were a lot of abuses carried out
using mobile phones. In terms of Internet trolling the Act did very little. Section 127 on the whole is just a
replica of Section 48 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. There was in fact a lot of misunderstanding
around this and it is believed that Gavin Brent from Flintshire was convicted under this Act in 2008 even
though it had not been in force since 2003.
The term trolling to reflect abusive messages started to gain currency by 2010 as it was being used by a
group of Internet users known as Anonymous to justify their transgressive humour which involved
abusing others for their own enjoyment.
By the end of 2012 many people had been arrested and convicted for committing electronic message
faults. If one thinks that the legislation to prosecute EMFts had existed since 1984 then it possibly
arguable that it was a media-drive moral panic.
In 2013 the tide is already starting to change. The media are now reporting more on cyberbullying and
child protection Whether or not it is intentional the media follow a cycle of juvenile justice. While it
was selling papers to attack youth trolls like Reece Messer and Matthew Wood, now it is more popular
to go to the other extreme to protect young people from online predators which are in some cases
called trolls, as the same young people would have been a year earlier.
Qualifications
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
There are a number of important technical issues to consider in relation to Internet trolling that make it
distinct from other forms of crime. It is possible to criminally profile particular types of Internet troller using
a character theory. It is also possible to predict what type of trolling is most likely to occur on a particular
website using a genre theory.
THE 12 TYPES OF INTERNET TROLLER

The twelve types of troller are quite unique and will be grouped into pairs because some are quite
similar and differing in that one group posts kudos to be friendly and the other flames to be nasty
(Bishop, 2013a; Bishop, 2013b).
TABLE 1 THE 12 TYPES OF INTERNET TROLLER
Troller Characte
r Type
Description
Lurker
Driven by Surveillance forces. Lurkers make silent calls by accident, etc., clicking on adverts or
like buttons, using referrer spoofers, reporting posts, modifying opinion polls or user kudos
scores.
Driven by Escape forces. An Elder is an out bound member of the community, often engaging
in trolling for newbies, where they wind up the newer members often without questioning
from other members.
Driven by Chaos forces. A Troll takes part in trolling to entertain others, bringing some fun and
mischief to an online community.
Driven by Order forces. A Big Man does trolling by posting something pleasing to others in
order to support their world view.
Driven by Social forces. A Flirt takes part in trolling to help others be sociable, including
through light teasing.
Driven by Anti-social forces. A Snert takes part in trolling to harm others for their own sick
entertainment.
Driven by Forgiveness forces. A MHBFY Jenny takes part in trolling to help people see the
lighter side of life and to help others come to terms with their concerns.
Driven by Vengeance forces. An E-Venger does trolling in order to trip someone up so that
their true colours are revealed.
Driven by Creative forces. A Wizard does trolling through making up and sharing content that
has humorous effect.
Driven by Destructive forces. An Iconoclast takes part in trolling to help others discover the
truth, often by telling them things completely factual, but which may drive them into a state of
consternation. They may post links to content that contradicts the worldview of their target.
Driven by Thanatotic forces. A Ripper takes part in self-deprecating trolling in order to build a
false sense of empathy from others.
Driven by Existential forces. A chatroom bob takes part in trolling to gain the trust of others
members in order to exploit them.
Elder
Troll
Big Man
Flirt
Snert
MHBFYJenny
E-Venger
Wizard
Iconoclast
Ripper
Chatroom Bob
Qualifications
LURKERS AND ELDERS

Lurkers do not have a persistent identity or obvious visibility in the online
community (Bishop, 2007; Bishop, 2011; Nonnecke & Preece, 2000; Preece,
Nonnecke, & Andrews, 2004). While they take part, such as by clicking
advertisements, voting in polls and voting others kudos points up or down. More
often than not their posts are kudos trolling and occasionally they will change Lurkers have the default
avatar or otherwise
their web browsers referrer address which tells the community the last website
make no effort to
they visited to one of a search engine with entertaining words in the search
integrate
results. Lurkers are best suited to communities where one doesnt need to take
part to stay a member and where there are a lot of activities that cant identify
them, such as polls, and other voting. Elders on the other hand, while
experienced and knowledgeable about the community and its norms, are cynical
and looking for a reason to leave the community (Bishop, 2007; Kim, 2006). Their
Elders will have
sophisticated avatars
flame trolling will often be directed to the novices, commonly called trolling for
that require experience
newbies, who they will try to incite to start a tirade of abusive messages, known
as a flame war, which they know the Big Men and Snerts will get caught up in. Elders, like Trolls, are
best suited to communities where there is a clear divide between Us and Them groups which novice
members are likely to be strongly for or against and therefore easily susceptible to flame trolling.
FLIRTS AND SNERTS

Flirts are those who take part in online communities to share their experiences and
support others achieve the things they want (Bishop, 2013a). To do this they take
part in kudos trolling where they pretty much only post comments which are in
agreement with others and which they support with evidence from their own lives.
Flirts like communities to have a solid chat or discussion forum open to anyone.
Snerts on the other hand take part in flame trolling where they offend and abuse
others (Bishop, 2013a). They will call people names that are insulting to them and
attack them personally rather than attack the substance of their arguments.
They will sometimes go to great lengths to offend others, such as by making
offensive videos about them or starting posts dedicated to abuse of them. Snerts
take well to communities where there is complete anonymity, free speech and no
checks or recording of their true identities. They often take part in trolling for the
lolz, where they abuse other for their own enjoyment.
Qualifications
Flirts look calm and

positive and want to
involve others.
Snerts often design

their avatars to look
like outcasts. They
post abusive
comments to harm
others.
TROLLS AND BIG MEN

Trolls are people who liven up online communities through post messages that
while having someone at the butt of the joke are entertaining to others (Bishop,
2013a). A type of kudos trolling, the messages posted by trollers, while not usually
constructive, hold the community together, especially when the targets of the jokes
are the Snerts.
Trolls tend to target communities where there is a clear Us and Them, such as
those based around sports teams where there is clear tribalism and
competitiveness. The Big Men also unite the community, but not in a peaceful way
(Bishop, 2013a). They take in upon themselves to be the arbitrator of right and
wrong forming a de facto council which the Snerts especially object to leading
them to unite against the Big Men (Bishop, 2013a).
The messages of Big Men can therefore be seen to be a type of flame trolling. Big
Men are best suited to communities which are disorganised with no clear structure
where they can try to assert some order, such as flaming people if they go off topic.
Trolls are entertaining

characters who often
act and look like a
fool to keep the
community together.
Big Men like to think

and look important.
They offend others
by acting like they are
an independent
arbitrator.
MHBFY JENNIES AND E-VENGERS

MHBFY Jennies, or in other words My Heart Bleeds For You Jennies are
the agony aunts and counsellors of the online community (Bishop, 2013a).
They show empathy for all members, whether the Big Men who are often
set upon by the Snerts, or even the individual Snerts, who they try to fix
into being nice people. Their kudos trolling takes the form of humorous
comments that help others see the lighter side of life. MHBFY Jennies are
best suited to health support communities where people are looking for
advice and support during troubled times.
E-Vengers on the other hand have a point to prove and grievance to air
(Bishop, 2013a). They may have been wronged by a particular group of
people or previously banned from a community which they then re-join
under a pseudonym.
HMBFY Jennies try to look

non-threatening and support
all users, even abusive ones
who they try to cure or fix
E-Vengers hold grudges and

try to get back at those who
wronged them.
E-Vengers are best suited to communities where there is a clear bias that supports their point of view, or
where there are few identity checks and pseudonyms can be used to support anonymity or multiple
identities.
Qualifications
WIZARDS AND ICONOCLASTS

Wizards provide a creative spark to the online community (Bishop, 2013a). They
are always looking to be original, through editing wikis to make them informative,
designing and selling virtual goods in virtual worlds, or helping others think
outside the box in forums. When they do their kudos trolling it might be to make
a deliberate mistake or put hidden code into pages which if found could be
entertaining. Wizards are best suited to communities where one can make lots on
contributions or a difference to others lives. Their opposites, the Iconoclasts on the
other had sought to destroy content or shatter the certainty others have in their
beliefs. For instance in a forum, if they know someone holds a particular point of
view they will link to an authoritative source that disproves it. The Iconoclasts are
best suited to communities where they can remove or change content or
otherwise disrupt them through edit wars where they battle with others to have
their unconstructive edits accepted. In wikis they are the deletionists who want
content which does not support their worldview removed (Bishop, 2013a).
Wizards like to create

new content and
ideas.
Iconoclasts like to
destroy others
confidence in their
beliefs.
CHATROOM BOBS AND R IPPERS

Chatroom Bobs are driven purely by their desire for a thrill (Bishop, 2012). They will
post jokes others find entertaining but this is only to seduce them so that they do
something to fulfill their needs, such as asking them to send sexualised
photographs for the Chatroom Bobs own pleasure (Bishop, 2013a, Bishop, 2012).
Chatroom Bobs are best suited to communities that are not moderated and where
there is a private messaging feature and ability to share images privately. The
Rippers on the other hand provide a depressive look at the world to online
communities, which strangely promote community cohesion through the Flirts
and MHBFY Jennies having a victim to support and nurture. Their kudos trolling is
often in the form of self-deprecating jokes, which can help make others feel a
sense of superiority, such as the Snerts. Rippers are best suited to communities that
are made of people who offer lots of suggestions, which they can keep giving
excuses to turn down as they are only looking for sympathy.
Qualifications
Rippers look for

attention and will
present as victims.
Chatroom Bobs try to

seduce others for their
own benefit
THE FOUR SEVERITIES AND STRATEGIES OF INTERNET TROLLING

The CPS makes a number of distinctions in relation to differences between types of offences (paragraph
12, 1 to 4):
1.
2.
3.
4.
Communications which may constitute credible threats of violence to the person or damage to
property.
Communications which specifically target an individual or individuals and which may constitute
harassment or stalking within the meaning of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or
which may constitute other offences, such as blackmail.
Communications which may amount to a breach of a court order. This can include offences
under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 or section 5 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act
1992. All such cases should be referred to the Attorney General, and via the Principal Legal
Advisors team where necessary.
Communications which do not fall into any of the categories above and fall to be considered
separately (i.e. those which may be considered grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false).
The distinctions made by the CPS in relation to differences between types of offences (paragraph 12, 1
to 4) seem appropriate and can be supported as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Communications which may constitute credible threats of violence to the person or

damage to property.
Communications which specifically target an individual or individuals and which may
constitute harassment or stalking within the meaning of the Protection from Harassment
Act 1997 or which may constitute other offences, such as blackmail.
Communications which may amount to a breach of a court order. This can include
offences under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 or section 5 of the Sexual Offences
(Amendment) Act 1992. All such cases should be referred to the Attorney General, and via
the Principal Legal Advisors team where necessary.
Communications which do not fall into any of the categories above and fall to be
considered separately (i.e. those which may be considered grossly offensive, indecent,
obscene or false).
In Table 2 is presented a framework for dealing with those electronic messages faults for
which there is either clear precedent for their use for trolling or they are dedicated to
EMFts.
A similar prioritisation can be seen to exist to that put forward by the CPS. Offences which are not
targeted at any particular individual or group have a Trolling Magnitude of 1 to 2. Those which target a
particular group or individual have a Trolling Magnitude of 2 to 3. Those which target an individual over
an unsustained (e.g. where the course of conduct occurs within a short time frame) should face a
harassment warning as their TM is between 3.0 and 3.49. Those which target an individual over a
longer period should be given a restraining order, as their TM is between 4.0 and 4.49. Crocels therefore
disagrees with the CPS that the Malicious Communications Act 1998 is appropriate for tackling abuses
against specific individuals (paragraph 40). Crocels instead believes the Protection from Harassment Act
1997 should be used in the case of where individuals are targeted.
Qualifications
TABLE 2 MATRIX OF TROLLING TYPES, STRATEGIES, GRAVITIES, SEVERITIES AND LEGAL REMEDIES
TM
Trolling type
Strategy
Potential Gravity
Playtime
(In the
moment and
quickly regret)
Cyberbantering
Grossly Offensive,
Indecent or
Menacing
(Low Flow, High
Involvement)
Tactical
(In the
moment but
dont regret
and continue)
Cybertrickery
Harassment, Alarm
or Distress
(Med Flow, High
Involvement)
Severity
Minor
(TM 1.00-1.49)
Major
(TM 1.50-1.99)
Minor
(2.00-2.49)
Major
(TM2.50-2.99)
3
Strategic
(Go out of
way to cause
problems, but
without
a
sustained and
long-term
campaign)
Domination
(Goes out of
the way to
create rich
media to
target one or
more specific
individuals)
Cyberbullying
Harassment, Alarm
or Distress
(Med Flow, Low
Involvement)
Minor
(TM 3.00-3.49)
Major
(TM 3.50-3.99)
Cyberhick
ery
Grossly Offensive,
Indecent or
Menacing
(High Flow, Low
Involvement)
Minor
(TM4.0-4.49)
Major
(TM4.50-4.99)
Appropriate
legal
provision
Fixed penalty notice 75
(finem facere)
Fixed Penalty Notice
150 (finem facere)
Common law detention
for breach of the peace
as permitted by s.40(1) of
the Public Order Act
1986 (animus
restituendi)
ASBO under s.1 the
Crime and Disorder Act
1998 (animus
restituendi).
Harassment warning
under the Protection
from Harassment Act
1997 (brevia
anticipantia).
Custodial sentences of
no more than 56 days
under Public Order Act
or 18 weeks under the
Malicious
Communications Act
1988 (brevia
anticipantia).
Restraining order under
s.5 of the Protection from
Harassment Act 1997
(ad vita aut ademptio).
Custodial sentence
under s.127 of the
Communications Act
2003, of 6 months for
each act (ad vita aut
ademptio).
In terms of the targeting of groups (including memorial pages) where a restraining order would be
impractical, more dedicated use of trolling laws where a custodial sentence exists should be used. A TM
of 3.5 to 3.99 would result in a short custodial sentence under the Malicious Communications Act or
Public Order Act, in order to act as a short sharp shock. Those who either do not respond to these or
look unlikely to change their attacks on groups should face prosecution under the Communications Act
2003 which allows someone to be sentenced for 6 months for each offence.
Qualifications
Wherever possible non-criminalising methods, such as those with a TM of 1 to 2 should be used, where
the public interest test for criminal action is not passed, but the troll needs to be told that what they did
was wrong and should not be repeated. It is easier for a troll who commits a minor act to understand
that a minor act had a fair price if they were fined 75, but they may feel resentment and become
disenfranchised and possibly become part of a life of crime and disaffection if they are punished with a
disproportionate sentence which is not a fair price. If one were to interview Matthew Woods and Liam
Stacey it is likely their attitude to the State will have changed significantly when they were punished
because of public pressure to set an example as the judges said in both cases. One might argue that
the court system is not there to set an example but administer the law fairly and objectively and not
bow to public or media pressure.
The CPS guidance that it is unlikely many EMFts will meet the threshold for a TM of 4 (paragraph 13) is a
sound one. It will be likely that other measures will have to be exhausted first. For instance, someone
should not be issued with a restraining order unless they have had the chance to reconsider their
actions with a harassment warning.
Paragraphs 15 to 21 of the consultation document may not fulfill the objectives set out earlier. In Table 2
a framework has been devised for dealing with those electronic messages faults for which there is either
clear precedent for their use for trolling or they are dedicated to EMFts.
A similar prioritisation can be seen to exist to that put forward by the CPS. Offences which are not
targeted at any particular individual or group have a Trolling Magnitude of 1 to 2. Those which target a
particular group or individual have a Trolling Magnitude of 2 to 3. Those which target an individual over
an unsustained (e.g. where the course of conduct occurs within a short time frame) should face a
harassment warning as their TM is between 3.0 and 3.49. Those which target an individual over a
longer period should be given a restraining order, as their TM is between 4.0 and 4.49. The CPSs finding
that the Malicious Communications Act 1998 is appropriate for tackling abuses against specific
individuals (paragraph 40) may not be justified. The the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 may be
more appropriate in the cases of where individuals are targeted.
CYBER-BANTERING (MAGNITUDE 1 TROLLING)

Cyberbantering, or 'Playtime trolling,' as it is historically called refers to the posting of messages indented
to be humorous, but which some might find offensive. Examples include Paul Chambers and Matthew
Wood. Both were prosecuted. In the case of the former his appeal found that a message had to cause
apprehension to be threatening. But in the case of the latter he was convicted for re-telling a joke about
April Jones that he got from sickipedia. This are usually said in the moment with not much thought.
Such jokes may be perceived as grossly offensive at the time when in reality they are simply offensive.
The aphorism, Avoid clichs like the plague, may be funny, but at the time of the Black Plague would
have been perceived as grossly offensive by many. There is no joke ever spoken that is not offensive to
someone that is what makes a joke funny there is a fool or other circumstance made light of.
It is often not in the public interest to bring criminal action for a minor EMFt, such as Reece Messer telling
Tom Daley he let his late father down by not gaining a medal. There may however be public pressure in
some cases, or that person is at the early stage of going off the rails. In both these cases fixed penalty
notices should be used in order to convey the message someone was wrong in their act, and, where
necessary also convince the media and public that justice was seen to be done. This could include the
EMFts referred to in paragraph 33 of the consultation.
Qualifications
The CPS appears to make a sound judgment in paragraph 33 that the Communications Act 2003 and
Malicious Communications Act 1988 only criminalise grossly offensive acts, but we believe such acts also
fall within the TM of 1 range where the thresholds under those Acts for a TM of 3.5 to 4.00 would not
be met. These can include grossly offensive material within the meaning of DPP v Connolly, such as
where showing adult imagery to children would be grossly offensive to them even it were not to adults.
As indicated in paragraph 35 the context changes how an electronic message may be seen. For
instance, in many cases, such as where children sext each other criminalising children would be
disproportionate, but sending a clear message to that child and their parents that it was wrong could be
done through fixed penalty notices.
In terms of the public interest test Crocels agrees with the CPS that even if an electronic message falls
within one of the higher TMs that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute if the person
removed the content after realising their mistake (paragraph 39a). A fixed penalty notice may be more
appropriate. The CPS could be considered correct that where a message was not intended for a wide
audience that it should be considered not in the public interest to prosecute (paragraph 39c). A fixed
penalty notice may be appropriate however to deter repeating the same act. It might be best that
anything that falls within paragraph 39d not even be given a fixed penalty as it is clearly free speech.
CYBER-TRICKERY (MAGNITUDE 2 TROLLING)

Cybertrickery, or 'Tactical trolling,' as it is historically called refers to the posting of messages which require
some thought. This can include telling a joke where one has had to look up information, setting an
elephant trap for friends like moves on a chessboard to make them laugh.
CYBER-BULLYING (MAGNITUDE 3 TROLLING)

Cyberbullying, or 'Strategic trolling,' as it is historically called means the intentional and orchestrated
campaign of abuse that might affect a person or a group. Examples include Bridget Agar and the
various relationship e-vengers and chatroom bobs to target their former partners. The test referred to in
paragraph 36 of the consultation about the severity of certain posts would only fall within a TM of 3 as
set out here, or a TM of 4 as set out in the next section. Anything that does not meet the tests in
paragraph 36 is more likely to fall within a TM of 1 to 2.
CYBER-HICKERY (MAGNITUDE 4 TROLLING)

Cyberhickery, or 'Domination trolling,' as it is historically called means people who go out of their way to
abuse others on a long-term or intense basis. It often involves the creation of dedicated websites or rich
media. The term cyberhickery comes from cybertrickery morphed with 'hickory' - a stick used to hit others
with. This severity trolling would often require an expertise not normally available at local police level. It
might be advisable that local police resemble GPs in relation to cyber-hickery because it might be best
that they collect the information from reporting persons and witnesses, and then pass this on to the
National Crime Agency. This agency, which includes CEOP could be more like a hospital surgeon, in
that they can use the information to collect further evidence using computer forensics and more
efficiently use powers granted to them by the Data Protection Act, Regulation of Investigatory Powers
Act, etc.
Qualifications
WHERE TROLLERS TROLL GENRES OF ONLINE COMMUNITY

It is known that Internet trollers troll for a number of reasons most simply to be friendly (kudos trolling)
or nasty (flame trolling). This article explains the different avenues on the Internet available to trollers to
make social contact with others. These are not types but genres they are called genres because they
a formed based on rules about their structure as opposed to specifications of their technologies.
Genre
Advantages/Disadvantages
Personal Homepage
Advantages: Regularly updated, allows people to connect with those that

they know through leaving messages and joining circle of friends
Disadvantage: Members often need to re-register for each site and cannot
usually take their Circle of Friends with them.
Message Boards
Advantages: Posts can be accessed at any time. Easy to ignore undesirable

content.
Disadvantages: Threads can become very long and reading through the
messages is time consuming
Email Lists and

Newsletters
Advantages: Allows a user to receive a message as soon as it is sent
Chat Groups
Advantages: Synchronous. Users can communicate in real-time.
Disadvantages: Cannot always access an archive of messages.
Disadvantages: Posts can be sent simultaneously and the user can become
lost in the conversation.
Virtual Worlds
Advantages: 3D metaphors allow a user to get more involved in the

community
Disadvantages: Requires certain hardware and software that not all users
have
Weblogs and Directories Advantages: Easily updated, regular content

Disadvantages: Members cant start topics only respond to them
Wikis and Hypertext
Fiction
Advantages: Can allow for collaborative work on literary projects

Disadvantages: Can bring out the worst in people, such as their destructive
natures
Qualifications
It is important to understand the different genres of online community. Not only can it help you know
which ones to stay away from if you dont like certain trollers, but they can also help you understand
how to use each one differently.
THE PERSONAL HOMEPAGE

In simple terms it can be seen that on a personal homepage it is only the owner that can start content,
unless they leave a guestbook. One could think of your Facebook profile page like a personal homepage
people can leave comments on your wall (like a guestbook), they can look at your photos, keep up-todate with your thoughts and activities, and see other personal information about you. Facebook could
therefore be seen as a network of online communities made up of individual homepages. A troll can
troll on this genre of community by leaving nasty comments on the wall or in the guestbooks, and on
some websites they can insert code into posts which impairs its functioning. In this UK these are illegal
under the Communications Act 2003 and Computer Misuse Act 1990 respectively.
MESSAGE BOARDS
Message Boards are one of the most established genres of social contact on the Internet. They are easily
understood as anyone can start a topic and anyone can response to the topic. They are distinct from
chat-groups because the messages stay there and are responded to at a different time to when they are
posted. Trollers can be abusive on these by posting nasty replies or links to offensive content, or by
embedding indecent images. In the UK these are illegal under the Malicious Communications Act 1988
and Communications Act 2003.
EMAIL LISTS AND NEWSLETTERS

Email Lists and Newsletters are quite an established genre also. What makes them distinct is usually that
anyone with permission can start a post and they can be responded to but only that the response goes
to everyone on the list. These lists are usually not persistent as when a message is deleted from ones
email box it is gone forever. Exceptions include Yahoo!Groups which work both as email lists and
message boards. Trollers can abuse this genre's characteristics by sending emails that try to fool
someone into handing over personal details. This technique is called phishing.
CHAT GROUPS
Chat Groups are one of the easiest to understand genres. Contributions can be made by anyone, they
are sent and seen immediately. and can be responded to immediately. Many people call Twitter a microblog, as the posts are made from a dedicated account and people are invited to comment on it. But
there is another side to Twitter that makes it more like a chat group. It is possible for anyone to send
anyone else (who isnt blocked) a tweet, and to get an immediate response to that tweet. In chatrooms
trollers can be easily abusive by posting in the moment comments which hurt someone and get others
to laugh at them.
VIRTUAL WORLDS
Virtual Worlds have existed for a very long time. The most popularised one in the 1990s was the MUD
Multi-user Dungeon and this century has included the Massively Multi-User Online Role Playing Game
(MMPORPG). These make a quite distinct genre. The users are expected to adopt an identity and
persona different from their real one, living in a fantasy land of make believe. They use avatars, which
are what they pretend to look like to have fun, and if these use stereotypes, it helps people work out
how they would like to be seen and treated. In virtual worlds it is easy for trollers to hide their identity
and to pretend they are someone they are not. If it is an older person trying to get in touch with a
Qualifications
younger person this could be grooming (see Crocels News). This is illegal under the Sexual Offences
Act 2003 in the United Kingdom.
WEBLOGS AND DIRECTORIES

Many people see weblogs as new they became mainstream around 2004, but had existed long
before. Jakob Nielson for instance posted a weekly opinion section from 1995 called alertbox to reflect
its timeliness. Weblogs are included with directories for a very simple reason. If one were to look at
Amazon.co.uk it is very similar to a blog. The product pages are created by the owner of the website,
and people are invited to leave comments in this case reviews. It is possible to sort the pages into
lists (e.g. through searching) and have them ordered by date. It is possible for people to find related
posts through tags made on the pages. It is very easy for people to be trolled on this platform. Authors
can have untrue things said about their books, called defamation (see Crocels News), and people can
be nasty to others they disagree with.
WIKIS AND HYPERTEXT FICTION

It is quite common for novices to not understand this genre it is not immediately obvious how Wikis
and hypertext fiction are related. Some commentators have no such problem. Stephen Colbert for
instance edited a Wikipedia page on elephants to say that the African elephant population had doubled
it hadnt! There are a number of distinct factors of this genre. Almost anyone can change and make
links between pages. Each individual page may be edited by many people, but there is usually only one
finished version of the page at the end.
OPINION
There is a lot of uncertainty around the prosecution of electronic message faults (e.g. Internet trolling,
cyberbullying). This should not be the case, as the relevant Acts, most significantly the Malicious
Communications Act 1988, Communications Act 2003, and Protection from Harassment Act 1997 have
been used success for nearly all forms of offenses since 2009. This was long before the media hyped up
trolling starting in 2011 in the UK. This section sets out the expert opinion on the matter in relation to
earlier aspects presented in this report.
PREMISES
1.
2.
A particular provision in an Act will be considered on the basis of proportionality. For

instance the judgment in DPP v Chambers relating to threatening behaviour will have
application to other parts of Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, such as
gross offence, indecent and obscene communications.
Cases and legislation referring to specific terms will be treated the same. For instance,
the precedents in DPP v Connolly relating to gross offence in the Malicious
Communications Act 1988 will apply to gross offence in the Communications Act
2003.
Qualifications
THE PUBLIC INTEREST TEST

It should be essential for a public interest test to be introduced into whether or not to prosecute
electronic message faults. It may be necessary that this test be extended to whether the police should
even record certain types of data misuse like the telling of offensive jokes.
PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURES

Public interest disclosures are an essential part of ensuring fairness and holding to account those who
abuse their powers. It is likely that in the course of making a public interest disclosure that someone will
send electronic messages that could be deemed grossly offensive by those who the public interest
disclosure concerns. It should therefore be a concern if the person making the disclosure were to be
subject to any form of detriment following making that disclosure. As is the nature of human beings,
those public interest disclosures deemed to be offensive may be passed on to those to whom they refer.
This will then make these messages grossly offensive. One might want to apply DPP v Connolly. One
might think of a public interest disclosure to the relevant authority as sending a picture of an aborted
foetus to the abortion surgeon. If that message contained a political message about one of the
pharmacists and that surgeon passed on the message then it would be the surgeon that committed the
electronic message fault in terms of sending a grossly offensive message and not the person who
directed it as the surgeon.
OFFENCES AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS , CELEBRITIES AND POLITICIANS

One might argue that it is unlikely to ever be in the public interest for people to face anything more than
a level 1 to 2 outcome such as a fixed penalty to ASBO where the person the EMFt is being committed
against is a police officer, celebrity or politician. Save the precedents set in DPP v Collins, where the
messages could offend ordinary members of the public as well as the intended recipients, it should be
considered that using the principles in DPP v Connolly that these public figures should have a higher
tolerance for abusive messages. In the same way DPP v Connolly showed that an abortion surgeon
would not be offended by a picture of a foetus, then those used to being exposed to abuse should not
have the same rights as those who are not used to it. In reference to paragraph 42 of the consultation, It
might be regarded that the use of Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 to prosecute people who
swear at or otherwise abuse police officers or other public figures is an abuse of power by the police.
The legislation should be there to protect those members of the public who dont have a thick skin, and
the people who are responsible for making or enforcing the law should expect to be verbally abused
and be trained to deal with it rather than abusing powers that they would not want to be used against
them in the same circumstances. It could be considered that however to be in the public interest to
bring action for electronic message faults (i.e. a fixed penalty) against those public figures who advocate
free speech or being tough on trolling who act contrary to those beliefs, which could be seen as
amounting to an abuse of power. This would be in the form of fixed penalty notices.
An example might be Steve Rotheram MP who while calling for tougher trolling laws to secure jail
terms, calls people on Twitter deranged or a laughing stock, it might be considered not in the public
interest to bring criminal action (for TMs of 2 to 4.99) against a politician who has a mandate through
being directly elected for the term of their elected office. It might considered appropriate to bring such
action it they are not re-elected, or otherwise they become suspended from elected office, such as by a
recall election or the findings of the standards body to which they are subjected to for instance.
CONSIDERATION OF YOUTH ISSUES

Qualifications
One might with the CPS that there should be special consideration of how the use of the law will affect
young people (paragraph 41). The CPS suggests that young people has an upper threshold of 18. It
could be considered that instead it should be based on whether the young person is dependent or
mature. For instance under some Higher Education funding laws mean that students can be
considered dependent on their parents up to the age of 25. And at some universities someone can be
considered a mature student at the age of 21. One might argue that Liam Stacey should have treated
less severely as he was a drunken student who may not have been independent of his family. Also 17year-old Reece Messer who was heavily dependent on state benefits and jobless might not be
considered to be dependent also as he is unable to sustain his life independently.
EUROPEAN UNION IMPLICATIONS

Could European Union law serve as a model for testing the public interest?
Could there be a Deminimis doctrine as with Article 30 TFEU?

Could there be a judicially derived rule of reason as with Article 34 TFEU?
SUGGESTED INVESTIGATION PROTOCOLS AND EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS FOR

ELECTRONIC MESSAGE FAULTS
In paragraph 6 of the consultation document it is said, As far as the evidential stage is concerned, a
prosecutor must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.
One could consider this as far too simplex a position. The reference to conviction suggests that no
action would be taken against a troller if their actions did not pass the threshold for criminal
proceedings. As can be seen in the Diagram in Appendix I there are four stages of evidence to firstly
determine the severity of the offence using available evidence (discussed in Chapter 3) and also based
on that which is the most appropriate remedy such as whether it should be a non-criminalising one
like a fixed penalty notice or a criminal one like a custodial sentence. On this basis, the evidence should
determine which offence is used, unless the public interest test says otherwise. Crocels agrees with the
CPS that a case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or
sensitive it may be (paragraph 6). Crocels News has reported on a number of incidents where
harassment warnings have been used on trolls where there was no course of conduct for instance.
Our diagram in Appendix I suggests there are three stages of evidence in keeping with the case law
surrounding Internet trolling. These are, actus reus, malum reus, and pertinax reus. Careful application
of these taking on board the cases of DPP v Collins, DPP v Connolly and DPP v Chambers should mean it
will be easier for the police to determine whether a reported incident is in the public interest to
investigate further, and it should make it easier to know what to investigate, thus reducing the time
needed to collect evidence and prosecute.
TEST FOR ACTUS REUS

Actus reus is well understood as meaning a guilty act, as it the offence someone has been charged
with was actually committed. Actus reus has traditionally included all aspects of whether a fault was
committed with the exception of the intention, which was covered by mens reus. The case of Chambers
v DPP established that it is not necessary for mens reus to be proven with regards to electronic message
faults, where this may be unlike to occur, as forecasted in Bishop (2010).
T HERE IS A M OTIF BEHIND EVERY CRIME
Qualifications
An essential component of determining whether a flame trolling offence has occurred is that the
reporting person has actually witnessed it through their own unaided senses (Bishop, 2013c). In order
for someone to be a victim of trolling it may be considered necessary for them to have been bleasured
from observing a motif (Bishop, 2013c).
The term bleasure is derived from Morris v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines [2001] EWCA Civ 790 and King v
Bristow Helicopters Ltd [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 95, which interpreted the French word blessure. The
definition of bleasure is identical to the principle of actio injuriarum in Scottish law, which means
wounded feelings as opposed to harm to feelings. By virtue of Alcock v Chief Constable of South
Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310 it is not possible to be bleasured through television as viewing
broadcasted information is not perceived through ones unaided senses, particularly if the content is
impersonal. With regards to Internet trolling, if one is part of a flame-war where ones flow (i.e. a level of
engagement) is high, perceiving a grossly offensive message can be a bleasure if it has lasting harm to
the person (Bishop, 2013c), such as leading to a diagnosis of a psychiatric condition. This grossly
offensive message is a motif if it is observed through a persons own senses. That grossly offensive
content which is conveyed via a third party, such as through spoken or written representations cannot
be considered a motif to prosecute the original poster as the original post was not perceived. A clear
example is in R v Woods (Matthew), where many were offended even though they did not see the
original message. Any re-published representations of an original motif should be considered separately
from the original instance. The messages posted by the defendant in R v Woods were offensive jokes
about April Jones. Within the meaning of DPP v Connolly these only became grossly offensive when
they were relayed to the family of April Jones. The person who made the original motif available to the
family created a new motif, which is the one that would meet the thresholds for an electronic message
fault. The Malicious Communications Act 1988 can be used with both printed and electronic
representations of motifs, so should it be a newspaper that relayed the original motif in such a way to
make it grossly offensive as opposed to simply offensive then action can be taken against them.
On this basis a complaint by a member of the public would not be in the public interest to investigate
the publication of the original motif if that person did perceived the original motif or that person was not
personally grossly offended by it.
P UBLIC V P RIVATE M ESSAGES

There should be a distinction between those electronic message faults which are intended to be private
and those which are intended to be public. The main superior cases to consider are DPP v Connolly,
and DPP v Collins. The main inferior cases are R v Woods (Matthew).
The messages in R v Wood are unlikely in normal circumstances to meet the threshold for grossly
offensive, because they were intended for his immediate friends, who may have seen them as sick but
funny. This makes them a private message. The distinction between public and private messages can
be drawn from DPP v Connolly. In this case one could argue that if the defendant has sent the picture of
the aborted fetus with the political message to an abortion surgeon, it would be a private message, but
by sending it to pharmacists, that would make it a public message. This is because it is unlikely someone
seeing a private message that was intended for them should not be capable of being offended if it was
sent by someone aware of where they draw the line. If one applies DPP v Collins, then this was a public
message as the EMFt was sent to a person in public office who represents people likely to be grossly
offended by that. Had the defended made these comments to his friends by email, thus making it a
private message, it should be considered free speech and not prosecutable. This then draws the
question about the sharing of messages such as forwarding emails or otherwise making something
more available. On this, the test just mentioned should apply to the person distributing the email. As the
Qualifications
DPP has said publically, he is of the view that the retweet of a message counts as a communication
offence. So the person sending the message should be considered for committing actus reus and not
the original creator as with the Obscene Publication Act, each production of that publication is
making a publication. In the Tom Daley case, if Tom Daley felt the message was grossly offensive he
should not have retweeted it. By retweeting it he made Messer a chewtoy in that all Daleys fans
descended on Messer to abuse him. Many celebrities do this and then act as cry trolls that is they
encourage people to abuse them and others and then complain when they are abused. It might be
considered that a person who has had an EMFt against them loses the right for someone to be
prosecuted for that communications offence if they encourage its proliferation.
TEST FOR MALUM REUS

Malum Reus is a test representing the degree to which a complainant was injured, whether physically or
mentally. This test can be put together with the three superior cases of DPP v Chambers, DPP v Collins
and DPP v Connolly. The malum reus to the pharmacists of seeing an obscene image of a fetus in DPP
v Connolly was high, where as it would be absent with an abortion surgeon. The malum reus to the
airport staff and customers in DPP v Chambers was low (i.e. did not cause apprehension). In DPP v
Collins the malum reus to the MPs staff would be moderate, and potentially to immigrants higher
(because it was grossly offensive). If one applied malum reus in the Matthew Woods case, his friends
would not have been harmed, but had he sent it to April Joness family it would have been harmful. So
in the various R v Duffy (Sean) cases, by him sending abusive content to memorial pages to upset
families, he committed the guilty act (actus reus) and made a guilty injury (malum reus) so should be
prosecuted.
TEST FOR PERTINAX REUS

Another important consideration is pertinax reus (i.e. guilty persistence). The superior case in this
instance are DPP v Connolly and the inferior ones R v Duffy (Sean), R v Counsel (Jamie), which in the
case of the latter was the first of many prosecutions for the 2011 UK Riots.
Sean Duffy is a serial offender. He has committed numerous electronic message faults. He is regularly
sent to prison for 18 weeks under the Malicious Communications Act. It might be considered that as it is
likely he will keep offending then this creates a TM of over 4.49 meaning that he should face 6 months
for each act under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. In the case of Jamie Counsel and
many others he was prosecuted under the Serious Crimes act for trying to encourage disorder. This
may have been the case, but imprisonment of 4 years was totally inappropriate as it is unlikely that he
would commit the same act (i.e. setting up Facebook pages encouraging people to riot), meaning
pertinax reus is not met. It could be strongly considered to not be in the public interest to imprison
people for strict liability offences, unless their actions are likely to continue.
After a person had broken a restraining order it might be more appropriate to consider such an act a
Magnitude 4 offence, as they will have gone from Cyberbullying to Cyberhickery, as their campaign will
have been more long-term, this meeting the criteria for pertinax reus. A model showing how strict
liability and other factors could be most effectively understood in terms of sentencing is presented in the
appendix.
In a recent case involving electronic communications, R v Edgerton (David) the Judge Merfyn Hughes
criticized the lack of action by the police when reports had been made of a man (Edgerton) who
attacked a school girl in circumstances others complained about but no action was taken.
Qualifications
This provides a very important for the DPP to make in relation to electronic message faults. A freedom of
information request by Crocels found that in 2012 South Wales Police issued over 1,700 harassment
warnings. This can be seen as quite dangerous that could be over 1,000 people who will find it
difficult to work with children and vulnerable adults. It is therefore imperative that the CPS work with the
Ministry of Justice and Home Department to ensure a public interest test is derived so that frivolous or
vexatious cases do not appear on peoples records.
APPROPRIATE SENTENCING AND FINING

In terms of the targeting of groups (including memorial pages) where a restraining order would be
impractical, more dedicated use of trolling laws where a custodial sentence exists should be used. A TM
of 3.5 to 3.99 would result in a short custodial sentence under the Malicious Communications Act or
Public Order Act, in order to act as a short sharp shock. Those who either do not respond to these or
look unlikely to change their attacks on groups should face prosecution under the Communications Act
2003 which allows someone to be sentenced for 6 months for each offence.
Wherever possible Crocels believes non-criminalising methods, such as those with a TM of 1 to 2 should
be used, where the public interest test for criminal action is not passed, but the troll needs to be told
that what they did was wrong and should not be repeated. It is easier for a troll who commits a minor
act to understand that a minor act had a fair price if they were fined 75, but they may feel resentment
and become disenfranchised and possibly become part of a life of crime and disaffection if they are
punished with a disproportionate sentence which is not a fair price. If one were to interview Matthew
Woods and Liam Stacey it is likely their attitude to the State will have changed significantly when they
were punished because of public pressure to set an example as the judges said in both cases. One
might argue that the court system is not there to set an example but administer the law fairly and
objectively and not bow to public or media pressure.
TOWARDS A HARMONISATION OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LAW IN RELATION TO

ELECTRONIC MESSAGE FAULTS
Equity and the Common law and now pretty much the same thing. It has been argued that the same
harmonisation should be found between criminal law and the law of torts. Crocels currently has
research pending publication on the use of EEG technology to advise law enforcement authorities on
the culpability of a suspected troll in relation to their EMFts they have been accused of. As can be seen
from the image in Appendix I this uses thresholds through calculating the knol when a defendant is
exposed to the evidence of their offence. Whilst this technology is experimental, it will be explained in
this section in relation to current mechanisms for building evidence, including the principles of actus
reus, malum reus and pertinax reus discussed above. The procedure is as follows:
Does the wrong meet the threshold to be counted as a fault. This can include the
interpretation of statute as limited by case law. If not completely to meet the actus reus test then
inchoate liability may apply and the most appropriate outcome is likely to be a fine (finem
facere). This may be necessary in order to not to make the person feel they have gotten away
with something which even they may consider to be wrong.
Was anyone actually harmed by the fault? If so then the effect of this should be considered. If
not then it is likely strict liability might apply. This should not however result in criminal action,
but there needs to be a deterrent (i.e. animus restituendi). This can take the form of a common
law detention for breach of the peace, or an ASBO with a threat of 2 years imprisonment.
Qualifications
Is the person committing the now likely serious fault likely to commit it again? If not then a
caution or short jail term is most effective. If they are then a more substantial injunction or
custodial sentences is need.
It is important to note that the above procedure should be assessed before bring a case against a
suspected troll. By having a procedure as simple as this it should make it not only more cost effective to
determine which laws are most effective to deal with a particular severity of EMFt, but can give defence
teams a more effective means to achieve a fair trial also.
REFERENCES
Bishop, J. (2007). Increasing participation in online communities: A framework for humancomputer interaction. Computers in
Human Behavior, 23(4), 1881-1893.
Bishop, J. (2010). Tough on data misuse, tough on the causes of data misuse: A review of new labour's approach to information
security and regulating the misuse of digital information (19972010). International Review of Law, Computers &
Technology, 24(3), 299-303.
Bishop, J. (2011). Transforming lurkers into posters: The role of the participation continuum. Proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference on Internet Technologies and Applications (ITA11), Glyndwr University.
Bishop, J. (2012). Taming the chatroom bob: The role of brain-computer interfaces that manipulate prefrontal cortex optimization
for increasing participation of victims of traumatic sex and other abuse online. Proceedings of the 13th International
Conference on Bioinformatics and Computational Biology (BIOCOMP'12), USA.
Bishop, J. (2013a). Increasing capital revenue in social networking communities: Building social and economic relationships
through avatars and characters. In J. Bishop (Ed.), Examining the concepts, issues, and implications of internet trolling ().
Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Bishop, J. (2013b). The psychology of trolling and lurking: The role of defriending and gamification for increasing participation in
online communities using seductive narratives. In J. Bishop (Ed.), Examining the concepts, issues and implications of
internet trolling (). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Bishop, J. (2013c). Trolling law. Westlaw Insight,
Kim, A. J. (2006). Community building on the web: Secret strategies for successful online communities (Kindle Edition ed.)
Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2000). Lurker demographics: Counting the silent. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 73-80.
Qualifications
Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004). The top 5 reasons for lurking: Improving community experiences for everyone.
Computers in Human Behavior, 2(1), 42.
EXPERTS DECLARATION
1. I understand that my overriding duty is to assist in matters within my expertise, and that this duty
overrides any obligation to those instructing me or their clients. I can confirm I have complied with that
duty and will continue to do so.
2. I have set out in my report what I understand from those instructing me to be the questions in respect
of which my opinion as an expert is required.
3. I have done my best, in preparing this report, to be accurate and complete. I have mentioned all
matters which I regard as relevant to the opinions I have expressed.
4. I consider that all of the matters on which I have expressed an opinion lie within my field of expertise.
5. I have drawn attention to all matters, of which I am aware, which might adversely affect my opinion.
6. In preparing and presenting this report I am not aware of any conflict of interest actual or potential
save as expressly disclosed in this report.
7. In respect of matters referred to which are not within my personal knowledge, I have indicated the
source of such information.
8. I have not included anything in this report which has been suggested to me by anyone, including the
lawyers instructing me, without forming my own independent view of the matter.
9. Where, in my view, there is a range of reasonable opinion relevant to the opinions I express, I have
indicated the extent of that range in the report.
10. At the time of signing the report I consider it to be complete and accurate. I will notify those
instructing me if, for any reason, I subsequently consider that the report requires any alteration,
correction or qualification.
11. I understand that this report will be the evidence that I will give, if required, under oath, subject to
any correction or qualification I may make before swearing to its veracity.
12. I have attached to this report a statement setting out the substance of all facts and instructions given
to me which are material to the opinions expressed in this report or upon which those opinions are
based.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that I have made clear which facts and matters referred to in this report are within my own
knowledge and which are not. Those that are within my own knowledge I confirm to be true. The
opinions I have expressed represent my true and complete professional opinions on the matters to
which they refer.
Qualifications
Signature:
Qualifications
Date: 28 February 2013
APPENDIX I FRAMEWORK FOR DEALING WITH INTERNET TROLLING

Qualifications

Jonathan Bishop Expert Report For CPS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jonathan Bishop Expert Report For CPS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jonathan Bishop

Chartered IT Professional Fellow

PREPARED AT THE REQUEST OF: Director of Public Prosecutions

Prepared By Jonathan Bishop LLM FBCS CITP

Consideration of Youth Issues ................................................................................................................................................ 17

BRIEF CURRICULUM VITAE

THE 12 TYPES OF INTERNET TROLLER

LURKERS AND ELDERS

FLIRTS AND SNERTS

Flirts look calm and

Snerts often design

TROLLS AND BIG MEN

Trolls are entertaining

Big Men like to think

MHBFY JENNIES AND E-VENGERS

HMBFY Jennies try to look

E-Vengers hold grudges and

WIZARDS AND ICONOCLASTS

Wizards like to create

CHATROOM BOBS AND R IPPERS

Rippers look for

Chatroom Bobs try to

THE FOUR SEVERITIES AND STRATEGIES OF INTERNET TROLLING

Communications which may constitute credible threats of violence to the person or

CYBER-BANTERING (MAGNITUDE 1 TROLLING)

CYBER-TRICKERY (MAGNITUDE 2 TROLLING)

CYBER-BULLYING (MAGNITUDE 3 TROLLING)

CYBER-HICKERY (MAGNITUDE 4 TROLLING)

WHERE TROLLERS TROLL GENRES OF ONLINE COMMUNITY

Advantages: Regularly updated, allows people to connect with those that

Advantages: Posts can be accessed at any time. Easy to ignore undesirable

Email Lists and

Advantages: Allows a user to receive a message as soon as it is sent

Advantages: Synchronous. Users can communicate in real-time.

Disadvantages: Cannot always access an archive of messages.

Advantages: 3D metaphors allow a user to get more involved in the

Weblogs and Directories Advantages: Easily updated, regular content

Advantages: Can allow for collaborative work on literary projects

THE PERSONAL HOMEPAGE

EMAIL LISTS AND NEWSLETTERS

WEBLOGS AND DIRECTORIES

WIKIS AND HYPERTEXT FICTION

A particular provision in an Act will be considered on the basis of proportionality. For

THE PUBLIC INTEREST TEST

PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURES

OFFENCES AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS , CELEBRITIES AND POLITICIANS

CONSIDERATION OF YOUTH ISSUES

EUROPEAN UNION IMPLICATIONS

Could there be a Deminimis doctrine as with Article 30 TFEU?

SUGGESTED INVESTIGATION PROTOCOLS AND EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS FOR

TEST FOR ACTUS REUS

T HERE IS A M OTIF BEHIND EVERY CRIME

P UBLIC V P RIVATE M ESSAGES

TEST FOR MALUM REUS

TEST FOR PERTINAX REUS

APPROPRIATE SENTENCING AND FINING

TOWARDS A HARMONISATION OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LAW IN RELATION TO

Human Behavior, 23(4), 1881-1893.

Technology, 24(3), 299-303.

International Conference on Internet Technologies and Applications (ITA11), Glyndwr University.

Conference on Bioinformatics and Computational Biology (BIOCOMP'12), USA.

internet trolling (). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Bishop, J. (2013c). Trolling law. Westlaw Insight,