Communications Act 2003

Communications Act 2003
Act of Parliament
Long title An Act to confer functions on the Office of Communications; to make provision about the regulation of the provision of electronic communications networks and services and of the use of the electro-magnetic spectrum; to make provision about the regulation of broadcasting and of the provision of television and radio services; to make provision about mergers involving newspaper and other media enterprises and, in that connection, to amend the Enterprise Act 2002; and for connected purposes.
Citation 2003 c 21
Introduced by Tessa Jowell
Royal assent 17th July 2003
Commencement 17th July 2003 (partial)
Status: Amended
Text of the Communications Act 2003 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from

The Communications Act 2003 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.[1] The act, which came into force on 25 July 2003, superseded the Telecommunications Act 1984. The new act was the responsibility of culture secretary Tessa Jowell. It consolidated the telecommunication and broadcasting regulators in the UK, introducing the Office of Communications (Ofcom) as the new industry regulator. On 28 December 2003 Ofcom gained its full regulatory powers, inheriting the duties of the Office of Telecommunications (Oftel). Among other measures, the act introduced legal recognition of community radio and paved the way for full-time community radio services in the UK, as well as controversially lifting many restrictions on cross-media ownership. It also made it illegal to use other people's Wi-Fi broadband connections without their permission. In addition, the legislation also allowed for the first time non-European entities to wholly own a British television company.[2][3]

Provisions of the act

The act had a large number of provisions, including the following:


It is an offence under section 125 of the act to obtain access to the Internet when there is no intention to pay for that service.[4] The legislation was intended to prevent the major defrauding of communications companies. Nevertheless, the individual practice of piggybacking (the illicit use of a Wi-Fi connection to access another subscriber's Internet service) was demonstrated to be a contravention of the act by R v Straszkiewicz in 2005.[5] There have been subsequent arrests for the practice.[6] Piggybacking may also be a breach of the Computer Misuse Act 1990. Section 125 of the act has been criticised for its vagueness, resulting in the possibility that many users of portable Wi-Fi enabled devices may be inadvertently breaching it.[7]

Malicious communications

Section 127 of the act makes it an offence to send a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character over a public electronic communications network.[8] The section replaced section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 and is drafted as widely as its predecessor.[9] The section has controversially been used to prosecute users of social media in cases such as the Twitter Joke Trial and Facebook comments concerning the murder of April Jones.[10]

On 19 December 2012, to strike a balance between freedom of speech and criminality, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued interim guidelines, clarifying when social messaging is eligible for criminal prosecution under UK law. Only communications that are credible threats of violence, harassment, or stalking (such as aggressive Internet trolling) which specifically targets an individual or individuals, or breaches a court order designed to protect someone (such as those protecting the identity of a victim of a sexual offence) will be prosecuted. Communications that express an "unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some and painful to those subjected to it" will not. Communications that are merely "grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false" will be prosecuted only when it can be shown to be necessary and proportionate. People who pass on malicious messages, such as by retweeting, can also be prosecuted when the original message is subject to prosecution. Individuals who post messages as part of a separate crime, such as a plan to import drugs, would face prosecution for that offence, as is currently the case.[11][12][13]

Revisions to the interim guidelines were issued on 20 June 2013 following a public consultation.[14] The revisions specified that prosecutors should consider:

The revisions also clarified that criminal prosecutions were "unlikely":

Amendments to the act

See also


  1. "Communications Act 2003". Retrieved 23 April 2014.
  2. UK Office of Communications [4.4.1] | ICT Regulation Toolkit Archived 23 June 2012 at the Wayback Machine.
  3. Department for Culture Media and Sport - media ownership Archived 17 August 2009 at the Wayback Machine.
  4. "Communications Offences". The Crown Prosecution Service. Retrieved 23 April 2014.
  5. Jane Wakefield (28 July 2005). "Wireless hijacking under scrutiny". BBC News. Retrieved 23 April 2014.
  6. "Man arrested over wi-fi 'theft'". BBC News. 22 August 2007. Retrieved 22 August 2007.
  7. Stewart Mitchell (17 August 2009). "Vague Wi-Fi laws lead to legal risk for mobile surfers". PC Pro. Retrieved 23 April 2014.
  8. Neil Addison. "Harassment Law UK - Malicious Communications Offences". Harassment Law. Retrieved 23 April 2014.
  9. Professor Lilian Edwards (19 October 2012). "Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003: Threat or Menace?". The London School of Economics and Political Science. Retrieved 23 April 2014.
  10. Amanda Bancroft (27 April 2012). "Is the law criminalising 'improper' Twitter use a menace?". The Guardian. Retrieved 23 April 2014.
  11. "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2012: United Kingdom". Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. Department of State. Retrieved 4 October 2013.
  12. Dominic Casciani (19 December 2012). "Prosecutors clarify offensive online posts law". BBC News. Retrieved 4 October 2013.
  13. "U.K. sets out social media prosecution guidelines". CBS News (Associated Press). 19 December 2012. Retrieved 4 October 2013.
  14. David Barrett (20 June 2013). "Offensive online posts to escape prosecution if writers apologise, say new guidelines". The Telegraph (UK). Retrieved 4 October 2013.
  15. Ed Vaizey (4 November 2014). "The Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2014". Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Retrieved 24 November 2014.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 11/15/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.