Preston man spared prison after being accused of 'online hate speech' in landmark UK court ruling
A man who made “vile” online posts including violent threats and racial and homophobic abuse has been spared jail in a landmark ruling by a judge in Preston.
Aaron Pond admitted sending menacing phone messages to his own mother warning he was going to attack a former friend - named in court simply as Dave - and seriously injure him.
But the city’s Crown Court was asked to decide if other messages sent at roughly the same time over a two-week period containing “grotesque” remarks towards black and gay people meant the threats were racially or sexually aggravated.
Recorder Ayesha Siddiqi decided they were not after a lengthy legal argument between prosecution and defence lawyers in a case which the court agreed had no precedent under the new Online Safety Act of 2023.
As a result she decided not to jail Pond immediately, instead handing down a suspended prison sentence coupled with a requirement to do unpaid work and attend rehabilitation sessions.
She told him: “You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.”
The 33-year-old, of Lancaster Road, Preston, who was diagnosed with autism as a child, had previously pleaded guilty to sending communications threatening death or serious harm.
But when the prosecution claimed at the earlier hearing they were aggravated by other messages in the same batch showing hostility towards groups of people on the grounds of racial or sexual orientation, the case had to be adjourned for a week for both sides to consider legal arguments.
When it resumed defence barrister Tom Lord admitted: “We have found this exercise quite taxing because it is a new piece of legislation. We are breaking new ground in relation to this.”
The case was brought after Pond’s mother went to the family doctor expressing concerns over her son’s mental health after she received a raft of messages from him online.
In them he warned he was going to “kick Dave’s head in” and that he hoped his former friend would die “slowly and painfully”. He had also said he would be looking for Dave to “knock him spark out” and that he hoped he would be “paralysed for life”.
But at the same time Pond had also made “grossly offensive and obscene” remarks about Africans and homosexuals.
The GP passed the matter on to the police and he was arrested, eventually being charged with sending threatening communications.
The prosecution argued the two sets of messages should be considered together, even though those targeting Dave did not contain any racist or homophobic remarks, and the racist and homophobic ones were only an opinion and not actually threatening.
The court heard nothing was known about Dave and what his race or sexual orientation was.
Barrister Ben Stanley, for the Crown, said the new Online Safety Act did not define what a threat was. And because Pond’s mother – regarded as the victim because the messages were sent to her – did not support the prosecution and had not given a statement, the prosecution had gone as far as it could to establish a link.
Recorder Siddiqi said: “I can’t express strongly enough how vile they (the racist and homophobic comments) are, but I am not persuaded that in any way these are threats.”
The court was told Pond had received a police caution 12 years earlier for battery and sending offensive communications.
Mr Lord said his client had never denied sending the messages which he described as “abhorrent” and “deeply and grossly offensive”. But the only threats made were towards Dave, not members of any race or sexual orientation.
He told the court Pond had been diagnosed with autism as a child and had been “susceptible and impressionable to others’ views”. But he had been managing his condition well into adulthood, even going independently to college in the United States.
He had apologised for sending the messages and shown remorse for his behaviour. He recognised he had been misusing cannabis.
“He is salvageable,” he said. “He wants to go back to college and finish his course and he is extremely sorry.”
Handing Pond a 12-month prison term suspended for two years, Recorder Siddiqi told him: “Your mother had to call your GP because of her concern about your mental health. At the time you were said to be making threats of violence and also sending messages of racist and homophobic slurs.
“Those messages were vile, absolutely disgusting. They should never have been sent. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.”
She added that the difficulty in knowing how to sentence him was that it was a very new law and there are no guidelines. There were previous guidelines for old communications offences – up to five years in prison – but so far not in terms of the new Act.
The judge said only a custodial sentence would be appropriate for the seriousness of the offence, but she felt she could suspend it.
“You are being given a chance here, you need to take it,” she told Pond.
She ordered him to complete 120 hours of unpaid work and 30 days of rehabilitation activity.