Social Media Posts: Penalties for Offences

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the Petitions Committee for enabling this debate, and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for opening it. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who launched and promoted the petition. Like others, I thought it was the first time I had come across a petition from a Member, and it turns out that it is. The number of signatures that the hon. Member managed to secure shows that this issue is of great interest to our constituents, and it is right that we, as elected representatives in Parliament, debate these matters.

I want to begin by talking about something that was not given sufficient focus in the debate: priorities and choices. Police officers cannot and have never been able to investigate and solve all crimes, all the time. They will never be able to do that, so choices and priorities have always been at the heart of policing since it was introduced in this country. The Opposition would rather that our police officers prioritise catching burglars, car thieves, shoplifters and violent offenders, and it seems clear to me that the public agree.

It also seems clear that this is an issue on which the police, the CPS and the courts do not get it right all the time. As always, we cannot be led entirely by the worst examples, but they inevitably raise public concern. I will not focus overly on individual cases, many of which have been well publicised and often, thankfully, not taken forward in the end, but that begs the question: what would have happened to less high-profile individuals, or in cases that were less well publicised? The outcome may have been different, so this issue clearly needs our attention. That is not to say that there should never be any restriction on what people can put online. We need to find a balance akin to the one that we manage, as a whole—although certainly not perfectly—to keep more consistently in what we might call the real world.

The criminalisation of hate speech and incitement is not new; what has changed is the scale and immediacy of communication in the digital age. Social media allows anyone with a mobile phone to reach potentially millions of people within seconds, and their words are essentially permanent and traceable. It exposes individuals to a constant stream of content, often stripped of context, and sometimes designed to provoke. Social media also strips away the manner in which something is said and the demeanour of the person—details that are often key to the prosecution of these sorts of cases in the real world.

We have a responsibility to ensure that the law keeps pace with technology but remains fair, proportionate and grounded in common sense. Those who use social media to clearly and obviously promote hatred, threaten individuals or genuinely incite violence must not be able to act with impunity. But we must also ensure that sentencing reflects the seriousness of each case, that it distinguishes between genuine threats and offensive opinion, and that it maintains public confidence in both justice and freedom of expression.

The judiciary has discretion to consider the context, harm and intent behind each offence, and proportionality is key. Sentences must be transparent, consistent and seen by the public to be fair. We know that the vast majority of people in this country value free speech deeply, but they also expect accountability for those who cross the line into criminality. The balance is delicate and must be protected. Social media has created new forms of harm, but also new forms of expression, and the justice system must navigate these novel complexities carefully. However, when the response appears to some to exceed what is necessary to deter or rehabilitate, it is right that Parliament examines whether the framework that guides decisions remains appropriate.

There have been increasing anecdotal reports of the police arriving in disproportionate numbers to arrest children, parents and older people who may have said “the wrong thing”—as they might describe it—online. One example, widely reported in the press, was the arrest of Graham Linehan by five armed police officers at Heathrow in September. His alleged offence was a series of social media posts in which it seemed apparent to most dispassionate observers that he joked about punching transgender women in the genitals if they refuse to leave female-only spaces. That is a good example of the sort of joke that would not be welcome, and that many people would think was displeasing or inappropriate, but it should have been carefully considered before it was put forward as a possible crime. It was hardly worthy of the time of five armed police officers.

Such use of police time and resources was completely disproportionate when officers’ efforts could be focused on dealing with the crimes that our constituents care more about—such as knife crime, shoplifting and burglary—that regularly go unsolved and do not have the same level of attention in all circumstances. I welcome the fact that in response—and in clear support of the fact that there is an issue—the Metropolitan police announced that they will no longer investigate non-crime hate incidents. I direct those who think there is no issue to the decision by an independent police force to make a major change in how it polices these sorts of things and to

“focus on matters that meet the threshold for criminal investigations”.

We need to see that approach applied across the whole country. The Conservatives put that idea to a vote in the Crime and Policing Bill Committee earlier this year, but sadly the Government voted it down.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council, supported by the College of Policing, has reviewed the use and effectiveness of non-crime hate incidents. Subsequently, in September, the NPCC and the college wrote to the Policing Minister urging her to immediately scrap non-crime hate incidents in their current form, but the Government have not acted. They have ignored the authors of the review that they commissioned, and kicked the issue into the long grass. Will the Minister work with the Home Office to implement the recommendations of the NPCC and the College of Policing?

More broadly, the Government are not being transparent about this issue. They do not collect data on non-crime hate incidents and they do not publish data on the number of arrests made for online malicious communications offences. Accurate quantitative data on arrests and prosecutions for offences on social media are therefore hard to come by. Does the Minister agree that the Government should do more to assuage concerns by collecting and publishing data that might help to illuminate the issue?

We do have some data. In April, The Times published an article using data collated from freedom of information requests, setting out the number of arrests made in recent years under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. The newspaper reported that police officers are making more than 12,000 arrests a year under the legislation, equating to more than 30 a day. I remind hon. Members about the issue of priorities: police officers are going out and making 12,000 arrests a year for these sorts of offences. The paper also claims that the number of arrests in 2023 represented an almost 58% increase from before the pandemic, and that forces recorded 7,734 arrests in 2019.

[Dr Arthur]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s summing up; he is doing a great job. Those numbers invite some further investigation. Thirty per day does sound like quite a lot of arrests, but in how many cases was the communication the sole reason for the arrest? Was it just a matter of there being many other factors combined, and that was just one point in the arrest schedule?

[Dr Mullan]

That is a good example of the sort of question we cannot answer. We have had to rely on a media organisation putting forward FOIs to get some information. If the Government took ownership of the issue and published proper data, which might be able to pick out the nuances, we could have a more realistic debate. The hon. Gentleman is right that that could be the explanation, but we are none the wiser.

We cannot simply blame this spike on rank-and-file officers. They are often only following orders from their superiors, who point to guidance from the NPCC and the College of Policing. Another key issue is that many people I have spoken to who perhaps thought that people such as Lucy Connolly had done the wrong thing and should be punished, but were concerned about the length of the prison sentence. At the same time as the Government will not budge on this issue, they are passing legislation that will let thousands of violent sexual offenders out of prison early. Very many thousands of them will serve only a third of their sentences. The Government say that there is not enough prison space, yet their proportionate response is to say that we have plenty of prison space to arrest other people.

[Emily Darlington]

I wonder why.

[Dr Mullan]

I am happy to take an intervention.

[Emily Darlington]

Does the shadow Minister recognise that when his Government were letting out rapists and violent criminals, they put in place no protections whatsoever, whereas this Government have brought in protection orders and domestic violence orders to ensure that victims are protected in these cases? Does he also recognise that the prison crisis was caused under his Government?

[Dr Mullan]

I genuinely welcome that intervention. Throughout the debates on the Sentencing Bill, Labour MPs again and again made interventions that demonstrate that they fundamentally do not understand the Bill. I can take the hon. Lady through it step by step.

[Emily Darlington]

Thank you for mansplaining.

[Dr Mullan]

It may come from a man, but it is just an explanation. The early release schemes that we used, and that the Minister was previously using, excluded all sexual offences. We excluded sexual offences, and the early release schemes that continued excluded sexual offences. The Sentencing Bill makes no exclusion for sexual offences—none. We would not let out rapists earlier, and the Labour Government initially would not let out rapists, but they are now going to do so. We would not let out people who raped children, and initially the Labour Government would not let out people who raped children, but they are now passing a Bill that will let out people who raped children.

Some people say that the scheme addresses a short-term crisis, but, again, there are existing schemes that could be used for short-term prison capacity issues, such as the ones that I have talked about, which exclude sexual offences. We agree that those should be excluded. Instead of carrying on using those schemes, this Government are legislating to let rapists, child rapists and paedophiles out of prison earlier on a permanent basis. Ninety per cent of people who go to prison for child grooming will be serving a third of their sentence. If that is something that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) thinks is defendable, I encourage her to go away and read the detail.

As I said, the Sentencing Bill will let out thousands of violent and sexual offenders, even if Government Members pretend that that is not what is going to happen. I would also point out that some Labour MPs understand that and would not vote for it. They understand what their Government are persuading them to vote for. They really should not vote for it. I hope the Minister will commit to looking again at the sentencing framework to ensure it better reflects the concerns that colleagues have laid out today. Otherwise, this will be a missed opportunity.

We are clear that we can restore democratic accountability to sentencing only through the abolition of the Sentencing Council and the restoration of its activities to the Lord Chancellor’s office. That is the sort of wholesale reform that is needed. We introduced an amendment to the Sentencing Bill to enable that, but Labour voted it down, proposing instead a halfway house that will not achieve anything like the radical change we need.

The right choices are there and a better way forward is available. It is true that this is a new area for our law and for society; perhaps we were always going to take time to get this right. I welcome the campaigners and individuals affected driving politicians of all parties to do so. We have had some clear proposals for reform, which are a start, but in the meantime it will sadly take more cases, more public concern and more demands for change for the Government to get this right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Technology and social media have become more complex and difficult, but that does not mean we should shy away from attempting to ensure the principles that we hold so dear, including democracy. I will deal with that important point later in my speech.

This Government are committed to ensuring that penalties for these types of offences are proportionate and uphold freedom of expression. Sentencing is and must remain a matter for the independent judiciary. We all—particularly Government Ministers—have a responsibility to take extreme care when discussing individual cases. I will not be commenting on any, although we all take our own personal views on cases that capture the public imagination. But a sentence in the court of public opinion is not as rigorous as those imposed by courts of law. Each case is different, and the full circumstances are often not reported widely. Media stories of cases rarely convey all the information that the court had before it when deciding on its sentence.

Where an individual is convicted for an offence related to online speech, the independent judiciary is responsible for determining appropriate sentences, based on the facts of each cases and the relevant sentencing guidelines. An independent judiciary is vital to the rule of law and the functioning of a democratic society. It ensures that justice is administered fairly, impartially and critically, without political interference.

The independence of our judiciary from political influence is a vital part of our constitution, and I for one am determined to protect that in my role. The proposals by the Opposition to simply scrap the Sentencing Council amount to constitutional vandalism and have been described by previous Conservative Attorneys General as completely absurd.

[Dr Mullan]

Does the Minister accept that our proposals, which were not just to abolish the Sentencing Council but to create a number of bodies that advise the Department, are essentially exactly the same proposal that existed before the Sentencing Council was introduced by the Labour Government. Did he think there was constitutional vandalism prior to Labour’s reforms?

[Jake Richards]

The shadow Minister is completely incorrect. The Conservative party’s current proposals are not what was in place before the Sentencing Council was established. They propose to bring the sentencing of every type of criminal case into the Executive. That is a completely new, innovative and wholly dangerous proposal that has been criticised by Conservatives themselves. I remember when Conservatives used to stand up for our constitution and the separation of powers, rather than simply following the populist flame.

The sentencing framework is important, because it provides courts with a range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders in addition to imprisonment, including through discharges, fines, community sentences and suspended sentences. The law also makes it clear that imprisonment should only be imposed as a last resort and where no other sentence would be appropriate.

When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors. They have a statutory duty to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines developed by the independent Sentencing Council for England and Wales, unless they are satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice for them to do so. Therefore, differences in sentencing outcomes will be the result of a number of factors, including whether the offender has previous convictions or whether an early guilty plea was entered, as well as any particular aggravating and mitigating factors. They may also include circumstances surrounding the offence, as well as circumstances personal to the offender.

It is right that courts have the discretion to consider these factors and to tailor sentences accordingly, but that does not mean—and none of my argument should give the impression—that sentencing is not subject to democratic accountability. Parliament is sovereign. The Sentencing Bill, which we are taking through the House, makes changes to ensure that the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice agree to new guidelines before they come into effect, which is a new mechanism for bolstering accountability. We do not want politicians handing down sentences on each given case, leading to wild inconsistencies and unfairness. But of course, sentencing has a democratic function, and in my submission this change strikes the right balance.

The Government commissioned a comprehensive review of sentencing powers through the independent sentencing review, chaired by David Gauke, the previous Conservative Lord Chancellor. This was wide-ranging and evidence-led, examining the full spectrum of sentencing options. The aim of the independent sentencing review was to ensure that the framework is robust, proportionate and fit for purpose. The review was guided by three core principles: sentences must punish offenders and protect the public; sentences should encourage prisoners to turn their backs on a life of crime; and we must make greater use of punishment outside of prison.

The Government accepted the majority of the review’s recommendations in principle, many of which are now being delivered through the Sentencing Bill, which is currently progressing through the House of Lords. Our focus remains on ensuring that the justice system protects the public, upholds fundamental rights and uses custodial sentences only where they are necessary and proportionate.

The Government have made it clear that we need to focus our law enforcement efforts on preventing crime in our communities—more police on our streets, rather than more policing of our tweets. But the Government do not feel that there is any case for a change in legislation at this stage, as proposed by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth.

Freedom of expression is a right that must be protected, but it is not an absolute right; it carries a responsibility to use that freedom honestly and decently. Freedom used irresponsibly corrodes democracy; responsibility without freedom weakens it. The Government’s job is to protect both, and the Online Safety Act and our wider sentencing framework reflect that balance. They are designed to protect individuals, uphold justice and preserve the freedoms that define our society.

The Online Safety Act has been designed to safeguard legal free speech, uphold privacy and support innovation. It does not prevent adults from accessing legal content, nor does it restrict people from posting content that others may find offensive. It involves the regulation of systems and processes that platforms have in place for tackling illegal content and, critically, protecting children. There are also protections against the over-removal of content, where platforms take down content that they should leave on their sites.

As use of the internet has expanded, there has been an increasing awareness that online content and activity can cause serious harm to users. From disinformation to targeted harassment, what happens online now shapes lives offline. The public are right to expect protection online from abuse that would never be tolerated on our streets. There are some circumstances where the criminal threshold is met for genuinely harmful and dangerous material, whether that be online or through other forms of communication. That is why the Online Safety Act introduced three modern communication offences—harmful communications, false communications and threatening communications—ensuring that our legal framework is fit for the digital age.

We have now seen that the new offences introduced by the Act are being applied proportionately and effectively. Earlier this year, an individual was convicted under section 184 of the Act for encouraging a child to undertake serious self-harm through online grooming—the first case of its kind. We have heard about the real dangers that exist online for children, and we must clamp down on them. The case demonstrates the importance of having modern, digital-age offences that are capable of protecting the most vulnerable from genuine life-threatening harm.

The Act also delivered Zach’s law, named after a young epilepsy campaigner, which rightly makes it a criminal offence to send malicious flashing images intended to trigger seizures. It is a clear, common-sense and compassionate example of how the law can evolve to protect people with disabilities from cruelty and real, demonstrable harm online. We should remember that the Online Safety Act is not the only legislation that can lead to custodial sentences for online speech: recent convictions, including that of the individual jailed for issuing death threats against the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), show that existing laws on threats and harassment are being applied robustly where speech crosses into criminal intimidation.

Democracy cannot function when intimidation replaces debate. That is the balance we seek to strike in regulating an increasingly influential online world to protect the public—between freedom of expression and the safety of individuals and communities. I thank all Members for their contributions. This is an issue that is important not only to this House but clearly to many people across the country, and it is vital that we allow, and indeed encourage, rigorous debates about the relevant legal framework.