Warwick student rape chat scandal: Should they be prosecuted?

By on

Nottingham law grad Fraser Collingham considers how the law balances free speech and offensive social media messages

ūüďł A screenshot of an exchange between Warwick students (credit: The Boar)

Freedom of speech is a highly contentious issue on university campuses right now. Recently, 98 expletive-ridden messages in a group chat were exposed, which made reprehensible racist, anti-Semitic remarks and jokes about raping female students. The participants in the chat were students at the University of Warwick.

This is the second group chat to be exposed to the mainstream media, with the Exeter law student racist group chat coming to light last year.

If these messages were sent directly to the females referred to, then it is highly likely the students concerned would face prosecution. The Warwick incident raises several interesting legal questions. Namely, the messages were sent in a private Facebook group chat that were then later exposed (presumably without the consent of all of the participants). No one has been charged as of yet. In fact, two of the 11 students were permitted to return to the University in September but have since decided against this.

The vice chancellor of Warwick University has said there was a ‚Äúhigh likelihood‚ÄĚ legal action would be taken. But has an offence been committed? And if so, should the students be prosecuted?

The law

Communications Act 2003

The starting point for the Criminal Prosecution Service (CPS) is section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003. A person will be guilty of an offence if they ‚Äúsend by means of a public electronic communications network a message‚Ķ that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character‚ÄĚ. There is no need for it to be received. No victim is required. It has been held that Twitter is a public communications network (despite it being run on private servers) — so this Facebook chat would probably qualify too.

The key here is whether the messages were ‚Äėgrossly offensive‚Äô — merely offensive is not enough. Grossly offensive is measured against ‚Äúreasonably enlightened, but not perfectionist, contemporary standards‚ÄĚ (DPP v Collins).

It must be emphasised that “satirical [or] rude comment‚Ķ banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it‚ÄĚ will not be caught by section 127 (Chambers v DPP).

The offence is one of basic intent. The defendant must either intend the message to be grossly offensive, or at least be aware that a reasonable member of the public would view them to be so.

I think these messages, taken in their totality, would qualify as grossly offensive, based on DPP v Collins and Chambers v DPP. An offence under section 127 could therefore have been committed.

Malicious Communications Act 1988

This is another possible offence. Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 prescribes a person who sends another person an electronic communication message which is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character will be guilty of an offence if their purpose (or one of their purposes) in sending it is to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that its contents or nature should be communicated. Nothing requires the communication to be received.

This is couched in very wide terms but here, I doubt the participants in the group chat intended their messages to actually cause distress or anxiety. They probably viewed their messages as jokes. Due to the specific intent requirement of this section (Chambers v DPP), I don’t think an offence has been committed here.

It is worth noting that the CPS has an arsenal of other offences at their disposal, contained in the Public Order Act 1986 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The two offences outlined above I believe to be the most relevant.

Freedom of expression

This is enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It is a qualified right but the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has been very clear that it applies to information and ideas that offend, shock or disturb. (Handyside v UK, Vereinigung Bildender K√ľnstler v Austria).

Prosecutorial guidance

Due to the extremely wide statutory drafting of section 127(1), prosecutorial discretion is key. The CPS initially struggled with the legislation, as was the case when Paul Chambers, an accountant, was initially found guilty of sending a menacing tweet but later won the High Court challenge against his conviction. Now, prosecutors can look to guidelines when determining whether prosecution in cases involving communications sent via social media is appropriate.

Evidential stage

The next step is the evidential stage in which there is a high evidential threshold. The CPS will only prosecute under section 127 where interference with freedom of expression is ‚Äúunquestionably prescribed by law, is necessary and is proportionate‚ÄĚ. Context is key.

Prosecutions will only be appropriate where the communication is more than offensive, shocking or disturbing; or more than satirical, iconoclastic or rude comment; or more than the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters.

This is so, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it. Do the rape messages here go beyond the ‚Äúpale of what is tolerable in society?‚ÄĚ (DPP v Collins, Smith v ADVFN).

Kier Starmer, former director of public prosecutions (DPP) and CPS head, explicitly recognised that ‚Äúbanter, jokes and offensive comments‚ÄĚ are ‚Äúcommonplace and often spontaneous‚ÄĚ. It is relevant for prosecutors to consider:

‚ÄĘ The way in which the communications were made
‚ÄĘ The intended audience
‚ÄĘ The application or use of any privacy settings
‚ÄĘ The intention of those who posted the communications.

The individuals here may genuinely not have intended that their messages reach a wide audience — it was a private group chat.

Public interest stage

The CPS must then believe that it is in the public interest to prosecute. Since Article 10 ECHR is relevant here, on the particular facts of the case, it must be ‚Äėconvincingly‚Äô established that a prosecution is ‚Äėnecessary and proportionate‚Äô.

Relevant factors include:

‚ÄĘ The suspects‚Äô age and maturity
‚ÄĘ Whether the suspects have expressed genuine remorse
‚ÄĘ The circumstances of, and the harm caused to, the victim
‚ÄĘ Whether the communication was or was not intended for a wide audience, or whether that was an obvious consequence of sending the communication.

This last point is particularly important here.

Viable prosecution or thought crime?

The group chat participants may have committed an offence under section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003, which is drafted very broadly. The students could be charged if the CPS decide that the messages are more than offensive, shocking or disturbing, do go beyond what is tolerable in society, and if it is in the public interest to prosecute.

It may be relevant that there have been protests by students, the fact that a second group chat has allegedly been created (showing no remorse) and several individuals have expressed their disgust and even fear to return to Warwick University’s campus.

Want to write for the Legal Cheek Journal?

Find out more

Please bear in mind that the authors of many Legal Cheek Journal pieces are at the beginning of their career. We'd be grateful if you could keep your comments constructive.



No, their lives are already ruined by not being able to be lawyers and professionals in jobs.

In America there’s Double Jeopardy. So I think it’s done they’re ducked


How is an encrypted private chat public?

Just Anonymous

Indeed. Lord Brown ,made some very insightful comments on this issue in DPP v Collins [2006] 1 WLR 2223, at [26] – [27]:

“…Take, for example, the case considered in argument before your Lordships, that of one racist talking on the telephone to another and both using the very language used in the present case. Plainly that would be no offence under the 1988 Act, and no offence, of course, if the conversation took place in the street. But it would constitute an offence under section 127(1)(a) because the speakers would certainly know that the grossly offensive terms used were insulting to those to whom they applied and would intend them to be understood in that sense.

I confess that it did not at once strike me that such a telephone conversation would involve both participants in committing a criminal offence. I am finally persuaded, however, that section 127(1)(a) is indeed intended to protect the integrity of the public communication system: as Lord Bingham puts it at para 7 of his speech, ‚Äúto prohibit the use of a service provided and funded by the public for the benefit of the public for the transmission of communications which contravene the basic standards of our society‚ÄĚ. (Quite where that leaves telephone chat-lines, the very essence of which might be thought to involve the sending of indecent or obscene messages such as are also proscribed by section 127(1)(a) was not explored before your Lordships and can be left for another day.)”

In summary, Lord Brown asks why speech that would be legal if it occurred in the street should suddenly become illegal just because it occurs over a “public communication system.”

Lord Brown’s answer, as I understand it, is that such a system is funded by the public for the benefit of the public, and there is a legitimate interest in ensuring that the public do not effectively use public money for such objectively disgusting purposes.

If Lord Brown’s analysis is correct, I struggle to see such a justification could apply to a private conversation occurring on the platform of a private company (in this case, Facebook).

With respect

First non-trolling and serious comment I have seen on this website in years.


You evidently aren’t familiar with Just Anonymous’s comments then!


All private chats are public property…


Its all good and dandy you know the law. But this is too precarious. Might as well put edward snowden back to pentagon.

Your mother

Yes, let’s also hang Frankie Boyle, he’s pretty unsavory too.


No analysis of whether a private message thread is ‚Äúpublic electronic communications‚ÄĚ – it is just assumed that it is?


They should be prosecuted for shit banter. Awful chat. Weak betas.

Join the conversation

Related Stories