Declares that on 06/08/2010 Schillings Lawyers, acting for Amy Lynn Lee Hartzler of the American Rock Band Evanescence and her manager Andrew Lurie sent a letter of claim to the Petitioner, which the Petitioner claims was demanding that Mr Smith give undertakings not to report alleged criminal offences to the authorities; further declares the Petitioner believes that Schillings, on behalf of their clients, admitted that a teenage user of their website EvThreads.com had engaged in a course of conduct of “mean-spirited” remarks towards a Californian girl, Crystal Dawson, and that the Petitioner believes that despite having described the alleged perpetrator in writing through her lawyers as “mean-spirited” and deserving of being prohibited from the website, Amy Lee later appointed the perpetrator concerned, Amanda DeMarzi, to a supervisory role with authority over other users including minors.
Declares that the Petitioner believes that Schillings compelled the Petitioner to sign a contract that requires him not to report a number of alleged offences in relation to their website EvThreads.com, including drugs offences that have been expressly admitted by the alleged perpetrators and that the Petitioner believes that the contract also acknowledges the existence of three witnesses as to the culpability of Amy Lee and Andrew Lurie of 110 Management in attempts to procure the suicide of a teenage girl, and further requires that the Petitioner interfere with those witnesses by discouraging them from pursuing the matter.
Declares that subsequently the Petitioner became aware that some of Amy Lee’s former employees had published online on a site other than EvThreads.com paedophile material including a story about sexual offences against a physically disabled male minor and cartoons with pre-teens in lawful poses but with sexualised captions, including sexual activity with animals and one caption regarding a toddler consuming human faeces, and that the Petitioner believes that this material unfortunately falls through a loophole in the law and is not illegal in the UK; and further that the Petitioner also has grounds to reasonably suspect the persons concerned of also circulating illegal child pornography including photographs.
Declares that on 03/11/2011 the Petitioner wrote to Schillings asking their clients to allow him to report the alleged paedophile activities to the authorities in the relevant countries. On 08/11/2011 three members of Parliament placed before the House an Early Day Motion requesting that Amy Lee and Andrew Lurie allow the Petitioner to report the alleged criminal activity. On 25/11/2011 the Petitioner wrote again to Schillings repeating and clarifying the request. To date Schillings have not acquiesced and the Petitioner believes that their clients have knowingly allowed the publishers of the alleged paedophile material to have access to EvThreads.com where they can interact with thousands of minors.
The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons passes the Family Justice (Transparency, Accountability and Cost of Living) Bill, and asks the Government to urge Amy Lee and Andrew Lurie to take appropriate steps to resolve matters.
And the Petitioner remains, etc.—[Presented by John Hemming, Official Report, 17 July 2012; Vol. 548, c. 4P.]
[P001113]
Observations from the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State:
The Government are committed to tackling bullying, including cyber-bullying and trolling, at all levels, recognising that the experience of being bullied can have a significant impact on young people’s lives and in some tragic cases may have led to suicide.
There is a range of criminal offences that could cover bullying behaviour. Bullying is normally thought of as a pattern of behaviour (or a “course of conduct”) and this can be covered by harassment offences. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is purposefully worded in a way that captures a wide range of behaviours, including bullying and cyber-bullying, as well as other types of conduct which form part of a course of conduct which causes a person alarm or distress or otherwise amounts to harassment of them.
Offences under the following acts may also be relevant with regards to bullying or harassing conduct. The Communications Act 2003, Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Computer Misuse Act 1990.
There are also criminal offences covering behaviour which does not form part of a course of conduct. Offences under sections 4, 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 cover the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour which is intended to cause a person to believe that violence will be used against him or her or causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
In relation to sexually explicit material involving children, under the Protection of Children Act 1978 (as amended), there is an absolute prohibition on the taking, making, circulation and possession with a view to distribution of any indecent photograph of a child under 18 and these offences carry a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment. Section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 also makes the simple possession of indecent photographs of children an offence and carries a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment.
In addition, under section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 it is an offence to possess non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse, which could include “Hentai” cartoons and computer-generated images of child abuse. This offence carries a three-year maximum prison sentence.
Under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, it is an offence to publish an obscene article. The maximum penalty for this offence was recently raised from three to five years imprisonment.
Under section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 it is an offence to possess extreme pornographic images. This offence is subject to a three-year maximum prison sentence.
The Government cannot comment on individual cases. Decisions about investigations are a matter for the police and decisions about prosecutions are a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service. Both would need to consider questions of jurisdiction; subject to a few exceptions courts in the UK do not generally have jurisdiction to try offences committed overseas.