Karsten v Wood Green Crown Court
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE LAWS
- MR JUSTICE CRANSTON
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involved an appeal concerning the conviction of the appellant for sending a menacing message by telecommunications network. The message contained antisemitic comments. The case raised issues about the reliability of voice identification and whether the words used were menacing. The court found the voice identification reliable but determined that the words were not menacing, thus allowing the appeal and quashing the conviction.
J U D G M E N T
1. MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: This is an appeal by way of case stated from the decision of the Crown Court at Wood Green. On 6 September 2013, it dismissed the appellant's appeal against the earlier decision of the Tottenham Magistrates Court that he was guilty of an offence of sending a menacing message by a telecommunications network, contrary to section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003 . The message comprised the words: "Ask if he is Jewish. As him if he's eating kosher."
2. The background is that the appellant worked with the complainant, Mr Ron Golan, for a period of six weeks between mid June until the end of July 2013. Mr Golan is a company director and is Jewish. The two shared an open plan office with the appellant being about 5 metres away from Mr Golan. They travelled together on work to Manchester and Cardiff. The appellant then went on holiday and never returned to work. The appellant retained a laptop which Mr Golan claimed belonged to his Company. Emails were engaged between the two. The laptop was eventually returned but in a damaged condition.
3. Between mid September 2012 and the early part of October 2012, Mr Golan received a series of anonymous antisemitic calls from a blocked number. On the evening of 6 October 2012, he received two calls. Although Mr Golan did not identify the voice of the caller in the first call, he identified the voice of the appellant in the background. The appellant was prompting the caller to ask Mr Golan questions, and, according to Mr Golan, the appellant uttered the words I have quoted. A second call was made 10 minutes later. Mr Golan said that in the course of that call, the expression "filthy Jew" was used. He said it was probably the same person had called earlier that evening.
4. On 19 October 2012, the appellant was arrested for harassment. In the police interview he answered all the questions with "no comment" answers. He gave the police a prepared statement, saying that he was aware of the calls made to Mr Golan but did not want to name anyone involved out of concern for his own safety. On 18 April 2013, the appellant was tried at the Tottenham Magistrates Court for sending a message by a telecommunications network which was grossly offensive, contrary to section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003 . He was convicted and fined £35.
5. The appellant appealed his conviction to the Wood Green Crown Court. His Honour Judge Pawlak and two justices reheard the case. Mr Gola