DOCSLIB.ORG

Harmful Online Communications: the Criminal Offences a Consultation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Harmful Online Communications: The Criminal Offences A Consultation paper Consultation Paper 248 Law Commission Consultation Paper 248 Harmful Online Communications: The Criminal Offences A Consultation Paper 11 September 2020 I © Crown copyright 2020 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/reform-of-the- communications-offences/ II The Law Commission – How we consult About the Law Commission: The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Rt Hon Lord Justice Green, Chair, Professor Sarah Green, Professor Nicholas Hopkins, Professor Penney Lewis, and Nicholas Paines QC. The Chief Executive is Phillip Golding. Topic of this consultation: We are consulting on reform of the communications offences (Malicious Communications Act 1988 and Communications Act 2003) in light of developments in online communication. We are also consulting on specific behaviours such as cyberflashing, pile-on harassment, and the glorification of both self-harm and violent crime. Geographical scope: This consultation applies to the law of England and Wales. Duration of the consultation: We invite responses from 11 September 2020 to 18 December 2020. Responses to the consultation may be sent: By email to [email protected] OR By post to Online Communications Team, Law Commission, 1st Floor, Tower, 52 Queen Anne’s Gate, London, SW1H 9AG. If you send your comments by post, it would be helpful if, whenever possible, you could also send them by email. Availability of materials: The consultation paper is available on our website at https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/reform-of-the-communications-offences/ We are committed to providing accessible publications. If you require this consultation paper to be made available in a different format please email online- [email protected] or call 020 3334 0200. After the consultation: We will analyse the responses to the consultation, which will inform our final recommendations for reform to Government, which we will publish in a report. Consultation Principles: The Law Commission follows the Consultation Principles set out by the Cabinet Office, which provide guidance on type and scale of consultation, duration, timing, accessibility and transparency. The Principles are available on the Cabinet Office website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consultation-principles-guidance. Information provided to the Law Commission: We aim to be transparent in our decision- making, and to explain the basis on which we have reached conclusions. We may publish or disclose information you provide in response to Law Commission papers, including personal iii information. For example, we may publish an extract of your response in Law Commission publications, or publish the response itself. We may also share responses with Government. Additionally, we may be required to disclose the information, such as in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. We will process your personal data in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation. Consultation responses are most effective where we are able to report which consultees responded to us, and what they said. If you consider that it is necessary for all or some of the information that you provide to be treated as confidential and so neither published nor disclosed, please contact us before sending it. Please limit the confidential material to the minimum, clearly identify it and explain why you want it to be confidential. We cannot guarantee that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances and an automatic disclaimer generated by your IT system will not be regarded as binding on the Law Commission. Alternatively, you may want your response to be anonymous. That means that we may refer to what you say in your response, but will not reveal that the information came from you. You might want your response to be anonymous because it contains sensitive information about you or your family, or because you are worried about other people knowing what you have said to us. We list who responded to our consultations in our reports. If you provide a confidential response your name will appear in that list. If your response is anonymous we will not include your name in the list unless you have given us permission to do so. Any queries about the contents of this Privacy Notice can be directed to: [email protected]. iv Contents Page CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 The problem 1 Freedom of expression 2 This paper – background 2 The terms of reference 3 Topics not in scope 4 This Paper – proposals and scope 4 “Online”: technological neutrality and the scope of our proposed reforms 5 Harm and the communications offences 5 Structure of this Paper 6 Acknowledgements 6 The project team 7 CHAPTER 2: COMMUNICATION, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND THE CRIMINAL LAW 8 The importance of freedom of expression 9 Harmful forms of expression 11 Article 10 ECHR 12 Article 17 and unprotected speech 13 What does compliance with Article 10 require? 14 Was there an interference? 15 Was the interference prescribed by law? 16 Did the interference pursue a legitimate aim? 19 Was the interference necessary in a democratic society? 20 Article 8 ECHR 22 When is Article 8 engaged? 22 Negative obligations under Article 8 26 Positive obligations under Article 8 28 Balancing Article 8 and Article 10 29 Conclusion 31 CHAPTER 3: THE EXISTING LAW 32 Introduction 32 Specific offences: obscene and indecent communications 33 Outraging public decency 33 Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981 34 v Obscene Publications Act 1959 35 Harassment and stalking offences 37 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 37 Strengths of the stalking and harassment offences 40 Problems with the stalking and harassment offences 43 Public order offences 46 Public Order Act 1986 46 Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986: fear or provocation of violence 47 Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986: intentional harassment, alarm or distress 49 Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986: harassment, alarm or distress 50 General communications offences 51 Malicious Communications Act 1988 51 Communications Act 2003 52 Strengths of the general communications offences 53 Problems with the general communications offences 54 Vagueness and uncertainty 54 Over-criminalisation 57 Under-criminalisation 60 Unsatisfactory targeting and labelling 64 Overlapping offences 66 Conclusion 66 CHAPTER 4: CRIMINALISING ONLINE ABUSE: BEHAVIOUR AND HARMS 67 Introduction 67 Abusive online communications 68 Defining online abuse 71 Types of online abuse within the scope of this Consultation Paper 74 Online abuse as experienced by different groups 76 Women 77 LGBT+ people 78 Disabled people 78 Religious groups 80 BAME people 81 Intersectionality 82 Children and young people 82 Categories of harm arising from abusive online communications 83 Emotional and psychological harms 83 Physiological harms 88 Exclusion from public online spaces and other social and interpersonal harms 89 Economic harms 90 Wider societal harms 90 Modalities of harm 91 vi Emotional and psychological harm as the basis of a new offence 92 Conclusion 96 CHAPTER 5: THE PROPOSED NEW COMMUNICATIONS OFFENCE 97 Introduction 97 Our approach to reform 97 The role of the criminal law 97 Technological neutrality 99 A harm-based model 105 The proposed offence summarised 106 Consultation Question 1. 107 The New Zealand Model 108 The conduct element 110 “Sent or posted a communication” 110 Consultation Question 2. 111 “A likely audience” 111 Consultation Question 3. 115 “Likely” harm, not actual harm 115 Consultation Question 4. 116 Categories of harm: emotional or psychological harm 116 The threshold of harm: “at least serious emotional distress” 117 Consultation Question 5. 122 Requirement to consider “the context in which the communication was sent or posted, including the characteristics of a likely audience” 122 Consultation Question 6. 125 Particular sensitivities of a likely audience 125 Consultation Question 7. 126 The mental and fault elements 126 “Intended or was aware of a risk of harm” 126 Consultation Question 8. 128 Consultation Question 9. 129 Consultation Question 10. 130 “Without reasonable excuse” 130 Consultation Question 11. 135 “Was or was meant as a contribution to a matter of public interest” 136 Consultation Question 12. 138 Consultation Question 13. 138 Private communications 138 Consultation Question 14. 141 Threats 141 Consultation Question 15. 142 Jurisdiction 142 Consultation Question 16. 142 vii CHAPTER 6: SPECIFIC FORMS OF ONLINE ABUSE AND COMPLEMENTARY LAW REFORMS 143 Introduction 143 The proposed harm-based offence 143 Section 127(2) of the communications Act 2003 144 The offences under section 127(2) 144 Proposed reform of section 127(2) 144 Persistent use 145 Consultation Question 17. 146 Knowingly false communications 146 False communications: the proposed new offence 147 Consultation Question 18. 149 The conduct element 149 Consultation Question 19. 150 The mental element: 150 Consultation Question 20. 154 Consultation Question 21. 155 Group harassment 155 Group harassment online: behaviour and harms 155 Is group harassment adequately addressed? 156 Is there justification for a specific offence to address group harassment? 158 Consultation Question 22. 161 Consultation Question 23. 162 Cyber-flashing 162 Cyber-flashing: behaviour and harms 163 Is cyber-flashing adequately addressed by the Sexual Offences Act? 164 Is cyber-flashing adequately addressed by our proposed harm-based offence? 164 Benefits of making cyber-flashing a sexual offence 166 Can this be achieved by amending section 66 SOA 2003 (exposure)? 166 Consultation Question 24. 167 Scope for a new offence 167 Consultation Question 25.
Recommended publications
  • Silenced by Free Speech: How Cyberabuse Affects Debate and Democracy

    Silenced by Free Speech: How Cyberabuse Affects Debate and Democracy

    Silenced by Free Speech: How cyberabuse affects debate and democracy Chapter in: Rethinking Cybercrime, Palgrave Macmillan. In press, publication date January 2017 Editors: Tim Owen, Wayne Noble, Faye Speed The early days of the internet promised much. Posting online seemed to offer a freedom from expectation and prejudice. In the words of the New Yorker cartoon, on the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog. We believed nobody knew your gender, age or race either. Your beauty or lack of it was of no account, your mind was disembodied, pure spirit, freed from the hidebound judgements of society. You could remove the mask you wear every day, revealing your true nature online to other disembodied spirits in a way that you never could to your family or colleagues. Perhaps you would find a new community to live in online, a community that thinks and feels as you do. Or instead of revealing yourself, you could create a new self. You could play with your identity more easily than playing with your hair colour, you could have a whole wardrobe of new selves if you want them. The internet offered freedom from the space constraints and word counts of newspapers, as well as from their gatekeepers, political stances and editorial guidelines. Here, anyone could be their own publisher for free, and could be heard all over the world without having their opinions edited down to fit a hole at the bottom of a column or a gap in a 90-second feature. You can’t fill the internet, so you could say everything you always wanted to say, as many times as you like.
  • Civility, Safety & Interaction Online

    Civility, Safety & Interaction Online

    Civility, Safety & Interaction Online February 2020 1 Study Methodology Adults 18-74, Teens 13-17 The 2019 report is based on the views of 12,520 14-minute Web survey adults and teens questioned across 25 countries Interviews conducted May 1-31, 2019 Argentina 502 Belgium 501 Brazil 502 Canada 500 Chile 503 Colombia 502 France 502 Germany 501 Hungary 500 India 502 Indonesia 501 Ireland 500 Italy 500 Malaysia 500 Mexico 500 Netherlands 504 Peru 500 Poland 500 Russia 500 Singapore 500 South Africa 500 Turkey 500 United Kingdom 500 Countries in Bold United States 500 new in 2019 Vietnam 500 2 42,000+ Interviews since 2016 25 Countries 21 Online Risks 2019 22 Countries 21 Online Risks 2018 23 Countries 2017 20 Online Risks 14 Countries 17 Online Risks 2016 3 3 Key Research Questions Core Trends New questions Digital Civility Index Current & future state of digital civility Sources of online risk Consumer’s aspirations for digital civility Pain caused by online risks Topics that generate uncivil behavior Consequences & Actions taken The number of times a risk has occurred Know where to find help 4 The Rising Tide of Incivility Pessimism and Hope The Digital Civility Index increased 4-points to 70%. About half of the twenty-five country DCI scores rose significantly, with fifteen countries registering their worst DCI since the study began in 2016. Many countries in the study have seen a rise of populist movements or politicians who employ incendiary rhetoric, fueling confrontational discourse that extends into the online world. Nearly four in ten adults said politics was at the center of rude, uncivil or abusive interactions online.
  • RE-VISITING the FRAUD ACT 2006 – a STEP TOO FAR? Hannah Willcocks

    RE-VISITING the FRAUD ACT 2006 – a STEP TOO FAR? Hannah Willcocks

    RE-VISITING THE FRAUD ACT 2006 – A STEP TOO FAR? Hannah Willcocks Brought into force on 15th January 2007,1 the Fraud Act 2006 (‘the Act’) has now been part of the criminal law of England and Wales for over 12 years. Through the introduction of a new general offence of fraud, its aim was to improve the law by making it: a. more comprehensible to juries, especially in serious fraud trials; b. a useful tool in effective prosecutions; c. simpler and therefore fairer; and d. more flexible so able to encompass all forms of fraud 2 and “deal with developing technology”.3 Following the Act’s implementation, it has generally4 been accepted5 that the Act has managed to overcome the vast majority of the difficulties previously encountered with the old offences of deception.6 In 2012, in its Post-Legislative Assessment of the Fraud Act 2006, the Ministry of Justice (‘MoJ’) concluded that the aims and objectives of the 1 The Fraud Act 2006 (Commencement) Order 2006 (SI 2006/3200). 2 Law Commission, Fraud (Law Com No 276, Cm 5560, 2002), para 1.6. 3 Home Office, Fraud Law Reform: Consultation on Proposals for Legislation (2004) p. 5. 4 For a contrary view see Anthony Arlidge QC, Jonathan Fisher QC, Alexander Milne QC and Polly Sprenger, Arlidge and Parry on Fraud (5th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2016) 44, para 3-005. 5 See e.g. Simester and Sullivan’s Criminal Law, Theory and Doctrine (5th edn, Hart Publishing Ltd 2013) 610; Andrew Ashworth & Jeremy Horder, Principles of Criminal Law (7th edn, Oxford University Press 2013) 405; Carol Withey ‘The Fraud Act 2006 – some early observations and comparisons with the former law’ (2007) 71(3) Journal of Criminal Law, 220 – 237, 228 – 236; Nicholas Yeo, ‘Bull’s-Eye’, 157 NLJ 212 & 418.
  • Oregon Senate Passes Anti-Doxing Legislation

    Oregon Senate Passes Anti-Doxing Legislation

    OREGON SENATE DEMOCRATS Salem, Oregon Oregon State Legislature PRESS RELEASE June 7, 2021 CONTACT: Amanda Kraus, 503-986-1074 [email protected] Oregon Senate Passes Anti-Doxing Legislation SALEM – The Oregon Senate passed House Bill 3047 today, a bill to provide a civil remedy to a person who has experienced “doxing.” Doxing is a general term used to describe a situation in which someone deliberately shares another individual’s private information on the internet with an intent to incite harassment. “Throughout the past year we’ve seen a renewed effort of individuals and communities making their voices heard to call out racist systems and improve police accountability,” said Senator James I. Manning Jr. (D-Eugene), who carried House Bill 3047. “We have also seen the astounding efforts of our local journalists on the ground – sometimes in precarious situations to provide thorough reporting on these events, even during a public health crisis.” “Unfortunately, we have also seen people exercising hate and harassment against those with different views. Publishing a person’s private information online implicitly encourages hate and harassment against those individuals. It’s happened to my colleagues in the Legislature, it’s happened to teachers exercising their right as independent individuals to peacefully assemble and it affects safety as well as a person’s ability to earn a living,” added Senator Manning. “Doxing is a tool used to hurt. House Bill 3047 will ensure those who choose to cause that hurt know they can be held accountable and will give tools to victims of this bullying tool to seek financial remedy.” The bill allows an individual to sue for damages when someone deliberately releases a person’s private information online, such as work address or personal email, with the intent to incite harassment if their information is released without consent, and sharing that information results or could result in stalking, harassment, or injury.
  • Think Box 13.5

    Think Box 13.5

    Loveless, Allen, and Derry: Complete Criminal Law 7e, Chapter 13 Thinking Point 13.1 Has D committed fraud by false representation under s2 Fraud Act 2006? An auction house sells a painting by Picasso, believing it to be genuine. It turns out to be a forgery. Do they have MR for s2? Answer guidance 1. AR: False representation MR: Knowledge that the representation is false, dishonesty and intention to make a gain/loss/risk loss to another. Any auction house will always harbour a suspicion about the authenticity of art. They will therefore know that their representation might be false. But in the absence of dishonesty, assessed objectively (Ivey) they will lack MR. Thinking Point 13.2 D applies for foreign travel insurance for a forthcoming holiday and deliberately fails to disclose a recent operation involving major surgery. Whilst on holiday, her condition deteriorates and she requires expensive medical treatment. She submits a claim for this under the insurance policy. Has she committed fraud under s3? Answer guidance Yes. Any type of insurance contract is one of ‘utmost good faith’ and D will have both a contractual and also a criminal duty to disclose relevant information. The presence of dishonesty and intent to make a gain/cause loss/expose another to risk of loss will secure conviction under s1. Dishonesty is assessed objectively. Thinking Point 13.3 Has D committed fraud under s4? 1. D, a Citizen’s Advice Bureau adviser, professing to offer free advice and assistance, obtains compensation of £5000 on behalf of an elderly client for whom she had taken legal proceedings.
  • Sexual Harassment and Bullying Prevention Policy

    Sexual Harassment and Bullying Prevention Policy

    Sexual Harassment and Bullying Prevention Policy Purpose: The Sacramento Gay Men’s Chorus (SGMC) is committed to providing an environment that is safe and welcoming, and free from all forms of conduct that can be considered discriminatory, intimidating, or disruptive to Chorus functions, including behavior defined as sexual harassment or bullying. General Policy: During SGMC functions, Chorus singing members, non-singing members, volunteers, employees, vendors, contractors, and Board members (all of which are included hereafter in the term “members”) shall maintain safe, enjoyable and welcoming spaces by showing respect in their actions and words. Outside of SGMC functions, members shall interact with each other in ways that will preserve a safe, enjoyable, and welcoming space at SGMC functions. When making public statements about SGMC, members shall express themselves in ways that represent the organization as a safe, enjoyable, and welcoming space. SGMC recognizes that the culture of LGBTQIA+ people includes awareness and acceptance of sexual expression, gender identity, and social and political activism that is different than traditional “heteronormative” culture. Thus, during interactions between SGMC members, or when engaging the public on behalf of SGMC, topics of conversation, humor, and expressions of camaraderie may include sexual and political overtones that reflect the culture, rather than being an attempt to harass or bully someone. SGMC expects that members will interact with each other, but only to the degree that all parties in an interaction are comfortable. During SGMC functions, members support each other musically, and participate in conversation, expressions of friendship, joking, physical touch, and other signs of camaraderie. Outside of SGMC functions, SGMC neither promotes nor limits interactions between members, but will intervene in the context of a chorus function if those interactions affect the environment of a SGMC function.
  • Public Law and Civil Liberties ISBN 978-1-137-54503-9.Indd

    Public Law and Civil Liberties ISBN 978-1-137-54503-9.Indd

    Copyrighted material – 9781137545039 Contents Preface . v Magna Carta (1215) . 1 The Bill of Rights (1688) . 2 The Act of Settlement (1700) . 5 Union with Scotland Act 1706 . 6 Official Secrets Act 1911 . 7 Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 . 8 Official Secrets Act 1920 . 10 The Statute of Westminster 1931 . 11 Public Order Act 1936 . 12 Statutory Instruments Act 1946 . 13 Crown Proceedings Act 1947 . 14 Life Peerages Act 1958 . 16 Obscene Publications Act 1959 . 17 Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 . 19 European Communities Act 1972 . 24 Local Government Act 1972 . 26 Local Government Act 1974 . 30 House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 . 36 Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 . 38 Highways Act 1980 . 39 Senior Courts Act 1981 . 39 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 . 45 Public Order Act 1986 . 82 Official Secrets Act 1989 . 90 Security Service Act 1989 . 96 Intelligence Services Act 1994 . 97 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 . 100 Police Act 1996 . 104 Police Act 1997 . 106 Human Rights Act 1998 . 110 Scotland Act 1998 . 116 Northern Ireland Act 1998 . 121 House of Lords Act 1999 . 126 Freedom of Information Act 2000 . 126 Terrorism Act 2000 . 141 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 . 152 Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 . 158 Police Reform Act 2002 . 159 Constitutional Reform Act 2005 . 179 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 . 187 Equality Act 2006 . 193 Terrorism Act 2006 . 196 Government of Wales Act 2006 . 204 Serious Crime Act 2007 . 209 UK Borders Act 2007 . 212 Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 . 213 Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 . 218 European Union Act 2011 .
  • What Is 'Workplace Bullying'

    What Is 'Workplace Bullying'

    ‘The Boy In The Photograph’ ANTI-BULLYING PRESENTATION PERFORMED BY ROB HIGGS ‘The Boy In The Photograph’ is inspired by my own experiences... AM I BEING BULLIED? Several Times On Purpose The ‘Victim State’ FEAR SHAME SELF- BULLYING Strategies To Help Yourself If You Are Ever Bullied… Smash The Silence: Tell Someone & Report It Immediately. Allow Others To Support You. Keep A Diary. Collect Evidence. Build Confidence & Self-Esteem through Personal Challenge. Acknowledge your emotions. It’s OK To Feel Angry or Scared. Release the energy in a therapeutic way: Writing Performing Creating https://www.childline.org.u k/toolbox/art-box/ ‘BANTER’ vs ‘BULLYING’ http://www.telegraph.c o.uk/news/uknews/defe nce/11844639/Army- must-not-lose-banter-in- harassment- crackdown.html ROLEPLAY LOSER YOUR MUM.. UGLY WEIRDO THICK FREAK FAT I DON’T LIKE YOU. Creative Exercise Idea 1: Deflect With Humour Idea 2: Broken Record: “I don’t lose all the time” “Whatever, whatever, whatever” “Clearly not” or “That’s not true” “Thanks!..Thanks!..Thanks!..” “I’m pretty clever actually” “Blah, blah, blah..” “Thanks so much for telling me that.” Idea 3: Direct Question: “Everyone’s a bit weird. It’s a weird world.” “Is this banter or bullying?” “Great banter” “Why are you saying that?” “#Drama” or “#Banter” “What do you mean by that?” “Oh well” or “I don’t need you to like me” Idea 4: Use an ‘I Feel..’ Statement: “My Mum’s great, thanks for asking.” “You can’t talk to me like that.” “I’m just going to write that “You keep saying that…..and it down…and then not care.” makes me feel like…….” Top Tips.
  • Defamation and the Internet: Scoping Study

    Defamation and the Internet: Scoping Study

    Law Commission DEFAMATION AND THE INTERNET A Preliminary Investigation Scoping Study No 2 December 2002 The Law Commission was set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 to promote the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Toulson, Chairman Professor Hugh Beale, QC Mr Stuart Bridge Professor Martin Partington, CBE Judge Alan Wilkie, QC The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. The paper was completed on 8 November 2002. This preliminary investigation is the second of two scoping studies, carried out in response to a request from the Lord Chancellor dated 31 January 2002.1 Comments may be sent to: David Willink Civil Law Development Division Lord Chancellor’s Department Southside 105 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QT email: [email protected] It would be helpful if, where possible, comments could be sent by email or email attachment, in any commonly used format. © Crown copyright 2002 1 The first study, Aspects of Defamation Procedure, was published in May 2002, and is available on the Internet at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk. THE LAW COMMISSION DEFAMATION AND THE INTERNET: A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION CONTENTS Paragraph Page PART I: INTRODUCTION 1 The issues 1.4 1 ISP liability for other people’s material 1.5 1 The limitation period and online archives 1.6 2 Jurisdiction issues 1.8 2 Contempt of court 1.10 2 Summary of conclusions 1.11 2 Liability of internet service providers 1.12 2 Archives and
  • Marital Rape: an Evaluation of the Patriarchal Injustice in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013

    Marital Rape: an Evaluation of the Patriarchal Injustice in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013

    Christ University Law Journal, 3, 2 (2014), 97-112 ISSN 2278-4322|doi.org/10.12728/culj.5.6 Marital Rape: An Evaluation of the Patriarchal Injustice in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 Shivika Choudhary* Abstract The traditional belief that marriage provides a husband with sole rights over his wife, thereby exempting him from any prosecution for raping his wife, has been the justification for denying a woman the right to consent to sexual intercourse in marriage. Unfortunately, this belief has been a source of subjugation and exploitation of women at the behest of their husbands. Despite recommendations to revoke it, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 has retained the marital exception. The purpose of this article is to examine this dichotomy in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 that punishes rape as such, but does not penalise a husband raping his wife of fifteen years or above. Employing doctrinal method of research, this article analyses the various discrepancies and ambiguities in the Act of 2013 that perpetuate this culture of oppression and violence. Consent is the antithesis to rape. Thus, having examined the need for a married woman‟s right to consent, this note examines the ensuing lacunae that grant legal sanction to child marriages, create an unexplained discrepancy in the punishment for rape, and create variations in the age of consent and the age for availing exception. The recognition of marital rape when spouses live separately and not otherwise appears to be a mysterious distinction. Further, treatment of marital rape * Doctoral Research Scholar (Legal Studies), South Asian University, New Delhi; [email protected].
  • Future Identities: Changing Identities in the UK – the Next 10 Years DR 19: Identity Related Crime in the UK David S

    Future Identities: Changing Identities in the UK – the Next 10 Years DR 19: Identity Related Crime in the UK David S

    Future Identities: Changing identities in the UK – the next 10 years DR 19: Identity Related Crime in the UK David S. Wall Durham University January 2013 This review has been commissioned as part of the UK Government’s Foresight project, Future Identities: Changing identities in the UK – the next 10 years. The views expressed do not represent policy of any government or organisation DR19 Identity Related Crime in the UK Contents Identity Related Crime in the UK ............................................................................................................ 3 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Identity Theft (theft of personal information) .................................................................................... 6 3. Creating a false identity ...................................................................................................................... 9 4. Committing Identity Fraud ................................................................................................................ 12 5. New forms of identity crime ............................................................................................................. 14 6. The law and identity crime................................................................................................................ 16 7. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................
  • Combatting Online Harassment and Abuse: a Legal Guide for Journalists in England and Wales

    Combatting Online Harassment and Abuse: a Legal Guide for Journalists in England and Wales

    MLA Safety Guide COMBATTING ONLINE HARASSMENT AND ABUSE: A LEGAL GUIDE FOR JOURNALISTS IN ENGLAND AND WALES June 2021 DISCLAIMER: This guide is for educational purposes only. Every situation is different. A person experiencing an online safety threat should listen to their instincts, discuss their concerns with trusted allies and experts in law enforcement or security. This guide is and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Specialist legal advice should be sought based upon the particular circumstances in which it is needed. 1 MLA Safety Guide Acknowledgements This guide has been written by Beth Grossman, a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers specialising in media law. Strategic input has been provided by Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC, a leading expert in international human rights law and the safety of journalists. This guide draws upon her experience of having advised and assisted journalists dealing with online harassment and fearing for their safety. The guide was commissioned by the Media Lawyers’ Association (MLA) and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). The DCMS commissioned this report as part of its commitment to the National Action Plan for Journalists’ Safety. However, the guide is entirely independent of the DCMS. The MLA is an association of in-house media lawyers from newspapers, magazines, book publishers, broadcasters and news agencies. It was formed to promote and protect freedom of expression, and the right to receive and impart information, opinions and ideas. Its members include in-house lawyers from all of the major UK publishers and broadcasters as well as international news organisations. Our thanks go to Cian Murphy,Sophie Argent, Zoe Norden and John Battle for their assistance with the preparation of this guide.