header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
26 April 2024 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 8068 / Categories: Features , Public , Human rights , Equality
printer mail-detail

Malicious communications: what’s beyond the pale?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
169187
Exactly how thick-skinned do local politicians need to be? Nicholas Dobson looks at recent case law
  • For a conviction under s 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, a message must not only be ‘grossly offensive’ but also intended to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or (an)other(s).
  • Special tolerance may be required for speech on political issues.

Freedom of expression is ‘one of the essential foundations’ of a democratic society. Says who? The European Court of Human Rights, in Handyside v the United Kingdom (5493/72). So, Art 10(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998) gives everyone the right to freedom of expression, subject to Art 10(2) restrictions as ‘prescribed by law’ and ‘necessary in a democratic society’ for (among other things) ‘the prevention of disorder or crime’ or ‘the protection of the reputation or rights of others’.

But what about potentially offensive or shocking speech? Handyside indicates that, subject to Art 10(2), the right to freedom of expression

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll