Welcome

  • Naked Law is written by technology lawyers from Mills & Reeve. Our team is (mostly) based in Cambridge, England. We write about the latest legal and regulatory developments relating to information and communication technology, e-commerce, and privacy.

    Please send us an email or post a comment if you want to join in the discussions on Naked Law.

Disclaimer

  • The information on this blog is not legal advice. You should not rely on it and we don't accept liability in connection with it. Please read our full disclaimer and let us know if you would like us to advise on any legal issue.

« Guidelines for "blawgers" | Main | When does a DPA breach get an IC stare? »

Comments

Scott

As suggested by a friend of mine, why didn't they just prosecute the guy under s.127(2)(c) of the Communications Act 2003 instead.

Kevin Calder

It's an interesting question. The Communications Act 2003 provides for an offence where a person '...for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another...persistently makes use of a public telecommunications network.' The facts of the case are not completely clear, but two possibilities are that there was an issue in proving: (i) that the motive behind the emails was in fact 'causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety', or (ii) that the individual had 'persistently made use' of the network, given that the relevant software may have generated the emails in such a way that the network was not persistently re-used by the individual in question.

The comments to this entry are closed.