Bedfordshire police have no idea of the law

A crime was reported to Lancashire police where a man (Kyoji Mochizuki) created a grossly offensive website targeting a man and his daughter.  The website was obscene and used photos of each of his victims and fabricated sexualised false information to cause them serious harm.

A man in Bedfordshire, (George Vella) had been found to be interacting with Mochizuki on social media and this drew the parents to the Facebook page of Vella.  To their horror and disgust, they discovered George Vella has intentionally shared a link to the malicious website on his personal Facebook page and in a group of almost 10,000 people.  It was also discovered that a friend of Vella, Neil Wilkes had also shared in on his own facebook page.

The father (and mother) reported the offence to the police, but their teenage daughter has so far been protected from this malicious communication.  What I mean is, the parents have not directed their daughter to the sickening website as it would cause unnecessary mental trauma issues for the young female.   She is aware however that someone has taken her picture from her social media and posted it somewhere, that is all she knows.

On transferring the crime report to Bedfordshire police, they contacted the parents.  Bedfordshire police made it quite clear that the offence against the daughter is not a crime unless she sees it, which is untrue.

The Malicious Communications Act of 1988 makes the following interpretation clear

An offence of Malicious Communication occurs as soon as the communication is sent, and does not even have to be received by the intended person.  It is the sending and intent of the offender which counts as an offence

The above is taken from the West Midlands Police website, the home force of Neil Wilkes who is also under investigation.

The Malicious Communications Act 1988 is often misinterpreted by the police who are either too dumb to understand it or who abuse the apparent vagueness to avoid prosecuting some offenders.

Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act states:

Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety.

(1)Any person who sends to another person—

(a) [letter, electronic communication or article of any description] which conveys—

(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;

(ii) a threat; or

(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or

(b) any [article or electronic communication] which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,

is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.

As correctly interpreted, and related to the above-reported crime,

  1. Any person who sends to another person
  2. any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature
  3. is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.

So, George Vella and Neil Wilkes, both sent a grossly offences electronic communication by posting it on their public Facebook page for all to see, in this case, they posted a link to a sickening malicious website that they knew, or ought to know was grossly offensive and obscene to the father and daughter, therefore, they are guilty of the offence as it falls into paragraph b.  The kicker is that this offence is made out if it causes the recipient or any other person who he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*