Skinner (David) [2026] EWCR 4
Summary
Skinner’s appeal against convictions under section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003 for sending emails with attached letters about abortion to a Dorset Police inspector and the Dorset Police and Crime Commissioner’s office.
The Crown Court described the case as one about freedom of expression and freedom of religion in the context of the abortion debate. Mr Skinner, a Christian opposed to abortion, had sent two identical letters on 28 April 2023 with the subject line “Reporting mass murder in Ophir Road”. The letters referred to the BPAS clinic in Bournemouth, included graphic images said to be of aborted foetuses, and used forceful language about abortion, including comparisons with Nazi atrocities.
The recipients who opened the attachments, Inspector Fern Graham and Yvonne Fenwick in the PCC’s office, found the images highly distressing. Mr Skinner was convicted in the Magistrates’ Court on 1 May 2024 and fined, ordered to pay compensation to both women, prosecution costs, and the victim surcharge.
On appeal, the Crown Court refused an application to admit expert evidence from a GP and a doctor of Christian theology, holding that expert evidence could not assist on whether the letters were “grossly offensive”, which was a question of fact for the court.
The court accepted that the letters were “grossly offensive” and that Mr Skinner was aware they could be taken that way. So, apart from human rights issues, the court would have found the offence proved.
However, the appeal succeeded because the court held that a conviction would be a disproportionate interference with Mr Skinner’s Article 10 rights. The court gave three main reasons:
The letters amounted to political speech on a matter of public interest and therefore attracted the highest level of protection;
Images can be a powerful form of political expression, even if shocking or offensive;
The intended recipients were public officials, including a politically elected PCC, who could be expected to have a higher tolerance for robust expression on a public controversy.
The court distinguished Connolly v DPP [2007] EWHC 237 (Admin), finding that case materially different because the recipients there were not public officials involved in a wider political debate.
The court concluded that the prosecution had not shown that convicting Mr Skinner was necessary in a democratic society. It therefore allowed the appeal and set aside both conviction and sentence.
The Crown Court described the case as one about freedom of expression and freedom of religion in the context of the abortion debate. Mr Skinner, a Christian opposed to abortion, had sent two identical letters on 28 April 2023 with the subject line “Reporting mass murder in Ophir Road”. The letters referred to the BPAS clinic in Bournemouth, included graphic images said to be of aborted foetuses, and used forceful language about abortion, including comparisons with Nazi atrocities.
The recipients who opened the attachments, Inspector Fern Graham and Yvonne Fenwick in the PCC’s office, found the images highly distressing. Mr Skinner was convicted in the Magistrates’ Court on 1 May 2024 and fined, ordered to pay compensation to both women, prosecution costs, and the victim surcharge.
On appeal, the Crown Court refused an application to admit expert evidence from a GP and a doctor of Christian theology, holding that expert evidence could not assist on whether the letters were “grossly offensive”, which was a question of fact for the court.
The court accepted that the letters were “grossly offensive” and that Mr Skinner was aware they could be taken that way. So, apart from human rights issues, the court would have found the offence proved.
However, the appeal succeeded because the court held that a conviction would be a disproportionate interference with Mr Skinner’s Article 10 rights. The court gave three main reasons:
The letters amounted to political speech on a matter of public interest and therefore attracted the highest level of protection;
Images can be a powerful form of political expression, even if shocking or offensive;
The intended recipients were public officials, including a politically elected PCC, who could be expected to have a higher tolerance for robust expression on a public controversy.
The court distinguished Connolly v DPP [2007] EWHC 237 (Admin), finding that case materially different because the recipients there were not public officials involved in a wider political debate.
The court concluded that the prosecution had not shown that convicting Mr Skinner was necessary in a democratic society. It therefore allowed the appeal and set aside both conviction and sentence.