21

The following article claims that a man in England was sentenced to 18 months in jail for mistakenly blasting on his complete address book using Blackberry Messenger Service a sexually explicit text message to which two minor girls were among the recipients:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2012/09/28/the-blackberry-typo-that-landed-a-man-in-jail/

On the surface this seems unreasonable, but as the discussion at that article points out, perhaps there is more going on here than is being reported?

Is this just a simple as a man being punished by an overreaching law for an albeit embarrassing mistake, but certainly not an intentional act to solicit minors or is there more going on here and another side to this story to counter balance what on the surface seems to be justice gone awry? Is there substance to his claim that it was unintentional?

Improve this question
7
  • 1
    It often doesn't matter if you intended or knew you were breaking a law. It's entirely possible that accidentally exposing minors to sexually explicit images or text could result in legal punishment.
    – William Grobman
    Commented Sep 28, 2012 at 17:43
  • 7
    I'm not sure what the question is here. The blog post links back to news article that lays out the story it does seem that it actually happened. He did get the sentence reduced on appeal to 9 months suspended although he will be put on sex offenders registry. The registry is the worst part of the sentence as employers and landlords don't typically check the reasons someone is on one.
    – Paul Turnbull
    Commented Sep 28, 2012 at 19:03
  • The question is whether this is as it is reported or is there another side to this story?
    – WilliamKF
    Commented Sep 28, 2012 at 20:06
  • From the FAQ Skeptics - Stack Exchange is for challenging unreferenced notable claims, pseudoscience and biased results - it is not for requesting original research.
    – Chad
    Commented Sep 28, 2012 at 20:33
  • 10
    On first glance I'd consider this on-topic. The original report is from the Daily Mail, as far as I can tell, which is not exactly the most reputable newspaper. I can understand the suspicion that the current news coverage might not paint a truthful picture.
    – Mad Scientist ♦
    Commented Sep 28, 2012 at 21:16

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
21

This is a true story and can be checked on the court hearings site.

A man named Craig Daniel Evans was sentenced for something at the court mentioned in the article, during the month the article claims he was sentenced. This makes it more than likely true, as its unlikely to have picked a random name and court and month.

Use this case number at the site below: T20118037

Court Hearing Info

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .