Below is the order of the court as to the sentence given to Paul Chambers.
This accompanied the disgraceful and illiberal judgment.
R v Paul John Chambers
1. I have found you guilty of one offence of sending a menacing message via a public communications network, contrary to Contrary to [sic] section 127(1)(A) and (3) of the Communications Act 2003. This was [for] one single, menacing posting on the "Twitter" social networking site. It was not seen for several days by anyone connected to the airport.
2. I find no aggravating features other than the offence itself.
3. I have heard evidence from the Airport security in the form of Mr Armson that when he saw this posting on 11th January n [sic] he regarded it as a non credible threat. He was amazed at how easy it was to find. However he noted that you had left your name. Non credible is the lowest threat assessment. He goes on to state that the threat did not affect the running of the airport.
4. I am obliged to take account of the Magistrates' Court sentencing guidelines, published by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. If I depart from these I have to give reasons. The entry point for an offence of this nature is a level B fine. This is based upon someone being convicted after trial and being of previous good character. You fall into both these categories. I shall follow the guidelines.
5. Furthermore you have lost your job as a result of your foolishness and had considerable un wanted [sic] publicity. Currently you have no income and are living upon your savings. You have had to fund your own legal defence. You are not eligible for legal aid.
6. For these reasons I shall fine you £385, £15 victim surcharge that I am obliged to impose, and you will pay the [prosecution] costs of £600. A total of £1000.
District Judge (Magistrates' Court)
10th May 2010
No purely anonymous comments will be published; always use a name for ease of reference by other commenters.
**No personal attacks on the judge or witnesses will be published**