3 ms·

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meechan http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meecha... Is that the judgment? If so, whe

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meechan http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meecha... Is that the judgment? If so, when you say "He had a defence. He chose not to use it, despite the judge explicitly encouraging him to", are you referring to this part? > I should note that although I invited both legal representatives to make legal submissions during the trial about the law on freedom of expression, that was done only to a very limited extent. In the absence of focused submissions on that topic by either the Crown or the defence, all I can say is that, while that right is very important, in all modern democratic countries the law necessarily places some limits on that right.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
That's the one. I'd forgotten the Crown hadn't bothered either. The judge was trying to encourage an exploration of freedom of expression. Had the defendant bothered, he would likely have had very reasonable chance of acquittal or trivial fine in place of the £800. That the Youtube and "private joke for his girlfriend" aspects of his defence were shown up as lies probably didn't help his case. :) The next paragraph is relevant to the context, as he makes clear that in the absence of those explorations, the conviction rests solely on the narrow fact of whether the law was breached or not. i.e. without any mitigation taken into account: “This trial, unusual though some aspects have been, was therefore concerned, ultimately, only with the narrow fact-based question of whether the Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt that your using a public communications network on one day to post the video onto your video channel, constituted an offence contrary to section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003. I found it proved on the evidence that it was. My finding establishes only your guilt of this offence. It establishes nothing else and sets no precedent.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

That's the one. I'd forgotten the Crown hadn't bothered either. The judge was trying to encourage an exploration of freedom of expression. Had the defendant bothered, he would likely have had very reasonable chance of acquittal or trivial fine in place of the £800. That the Youtube and "private joke for his girlfriend" aspects of his defence were shown up as lies probably didn't help his case. :) The next paragraph is relevant to the context, as he makes clear that in the absence of those explorations, the conviction rests solely on the narrow fact of whether the law was breached or not. i.e. without any mitigation taken into account: “This trial, unusual though some aspects have been, was therefore concerned, ultimately, only with the narrow fact-based question of whether the Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt that your using a public communications network on one day to post the video onto your video channel, constituted an offence contrary to section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003. I found it proved on the evidence that it was. My finding establishes only your guilt of this offence. It establishes nothing else and sets no precedent.