Nicola Brooks, a 45 year old single mother from Brighton, has won a High Court Order forcing Facebook to reveal the identities of individuals who targeted her with abusive messages.
It all started when X-Factor contestant Frankie Cocozza was forced to leave the contest in November 2011. Ms Brooks posted a supportive comment about him on Facebook. Within hours, internet bullies had set up a fake Facebook page in her name and abused her e.g. calling her a paedophile and drug dealer. The attacks went on with increasing ferocity, and Ms Brooks reported the matter to Sussex Police. In the absence of what she regarded as appropriate action, she decided instead to start civil proceedings to find the identity of those responsible.
She applied under the jurisdiction created by the Norwich Pharmacalcase, allowing disclosure to be obtained from a third party which has inadvertently facilitated a civil wrong. This is the main route hitherto by which ID details in the virtual world can be obtained from ISPs and website hosts. It was used by the claimants in a 2008 libel case (Applause Store Productions Limited and Matthew Firsh - v - Grant Raphael )to find the individual responsible for libellous Facebook comments.
Facebook's position (via its lawyers in the US) was that it would comply with any valid Court Order obtained in the UK.
At the start of June 2012, the High Court granted the Order compelling Facebook to reveal the IP addresses and other information about her bullies. Ms Brooks's intention is now to bring a private prosecution against the abusers. This may involve further 'Norwich Pharmacal' action if the data held by Facebook turns out to be fake – then the next port of call would have to be the relevant ISP which will have billing information etc.
This sort of civil litigation is expensive and complicated, even allowing for the possibility of securing legal advice on a 'no win no fee' basis. It follows other cases of internet bullying where the criminal authorities have been more efficient than Sussex Police, it seems, in bringing internet bullies before the criminal courts.
In an article in September 2011, I wrote about the jailing of Sean Duffy for 18 weeks after he had written abusive messages on Facebook tribute pages set up for recently deceased teenagers. Please click here to view this article.
Since then, there have been other instances. Louise Mensch MP called in the police after receiving a threatening email which was eventually traced back to one Frank Zimmerman who later in June 2012 received a suspended jail sentence. This follows the notorious incident earlier in 2012 when a Swansea University student Liam Stacey was sentenced to 56 days in jail after a series of racist comments on Twitter concerning the collapse mid-game of Fabrice Muamba, the Bolton Wanderers footballer.
Pursuing civil remedies as the plucky Ms Brooks has done is a more complicated option for a private individual than invoking the criminal law via the Police, and there is a tide of public opinion that people in her position should not have to resort to such steps in order to bring internet bullies to book.
Against this background, the government is proposing an addition to the Defamation Bill currently before Parliament, to give new powers to enable the victims of such treatment to identify their on-line aggressors.
The right to know who is behind malicious messages without the need for costly legal action will need to be balanced by measures which ensure that false claims do not result in the removal of legitimate material, say privacy advocates.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
