Riot message man escapes jail term

Hungerford teenager posted malicious views as trouble swept nation, court hears

A MAN who posted hate messages on Facebook as rioting tore through Britain will not be jailed, it emerged at West Berkshire Magistrates' Court yesterday (Wednesday).

While others received four-year jail terms for inciting riots that never materialised, Gary William Cunningham argued, through his counsel, that it was a breach of “human rights” for him to be gagged.

As unrest swept the nation in August and fears grew that rioting would spread to Newbury, town centre stores closed early.

Mr Cunningham of Church Street, Hungerford, meanwhile, was posting inflammatory comments on the social networking site including: “If I didn't have to go to work tomorrow I would go into Newbury myself. It would be a laugh, especially if any police got cut up. Police deserve getting killed - I support any riot that targets police and property. All cops are scum.”

Others on the site, fearful of rioting in Newbury, alerted police, the court heard, and the 19-year-old joiner was arrested.

He initially denied posting the comments but after the facts were outlined to the court yesterday, he changed his plea.

Helen Waite, prosecuting, reminded magistrates: “In this case, context is everything - take youself back to those hot days when disturbances were headline news on television, radio and newspapers.”

She pointed out that Mr Cunningham's remarks had alarmed others and argued: “Common sense dictates they were clearly menacing and grossly offensive.”

Mr Cunningham, who has a previous conviction unspecified in court, admitted using a public electronic communications network to cause harassment alarm or distress on August 9 this year.

Siobhan Lloyd, defending, pointed out that Mr Cunningham had not been charged with inciting a riot and said: “Article 10 of the Human Rights Act states everyone has the right to freedom of expression....is it necessary for society to restrict his freedom of speech? It's not particularly offensive - it wouldn't grossly offend a normal person.

“The reason the riots started in the first place wasn't because a lot of people wanted to get something for nothing but because a man had been shot by police in Tottenham. People were protesting peaceably against the police, they were aggrieved.”

She suggested his comments were “tedious and annoying” rather than an incitement to harm police and claimed the terms “cut up” and “kill” could have different meanings when used by young people.

The court clerk, legal adviser to the magistrates, told them: “I must tell you that the context hugely aggravates the ofence. Some young men got four years' inmprisonment for just posting things on Facebook inciting a riot. There was no riot, but the appeal court said the offences should be looked at in context.”

However, presiding magistrate Peter George said; “We're all agreed that this offence is in the lowest sentencing band....however we feel the context and timing raises the seriousness. “It was a traumatic time for the country as a whole and what you said made it worse. However, we don't think custody is right, even suspended custody.”

Mr George, who remarked on Mr Cunningham's apparent lack of remorse, had to admonish him to remove his hands from his pockets and briefly stopped proceedings when Mr Cunningham interrupted him during sentencing.

Mr Cunningham was told to expect a community penalty and bailed until December 8.