How many UK arrests from social media posts are categorized as harassment or malicious communications?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Available reporting indicates UK police made roughly 12,000 arrests in 2023 for social-media or private-message communications captured under Section 127 (Communications Act 2003) and Section 1 (Malicious Communications Act 1988), equivalent to about 30–33 arrests per day in the period reported; parliamentary and library briefings cite a rise to “more than 30 arrests a day” and a 121% increase since 2017 [1] [2] [3]. Central government does not publish offence-level arrest counts for these statutes, so the headline figures come from custody data collected by The Times via FOI requests and are not a single official Home Office statistic [3].
1. What the headline numbers actually mean
The 12,000-per-year figure and “30 arrests a day” claim originate from custody data collated by The Times and reported widely; the Daily Telegraph summary cites 12,183 arrests in 2023 across 37 forces (about 33 per day) [1]. Parliamentary debate and the House of Lords Library repeat the “more than 30 arrests a day” framing and note the increase since 2017 (121%), but they also caution that the government does not publish arrest numbers broken down by specific communications offences centrally [2] [3]. In short, the totals are real but derived from force-level FOI returns and journalistic analysis rather than a single published national Home Office table [3].
2. Which offences are being counted — harassment, malicious communications, or wider categories?
Reporting and parliamentary material link the arrests to the statutory offences most often used for online posts: section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. Hansard and the Lords Library explicitly state that cases commonly use those provisions and that arrests for malicious communications often overlap with harassment, sexual offences, or hate crime [2] [3]. Local FOI responses (example: Cumbria Police) show forces searched custody records for keywords like “social media,” yielding arrests recorded under malicious communications, harassment (including religiously aggravated forms) and related sub‑categories [4]. Therefore the “social media arrests” figure covers malicious communications, harassment and adjacent offence labels as recorded by individual forces [2] [4].
3. Data gaps and why numbers differ between sources
The Lords Library makes clear the government “does not publish data on the number of arrests made for online malicious communication offences,” and Home Office arrest releases are by offence groups, not detailed by specific statutes; that forces the use of FOI-sourced custody data to build the 12,000 estimate [3]. Some forces did not supply data to The Times, and FOI approaches vary by force, so the aggregate is an informed estimate rather than a guaranteed complete national count [3] [1]. Where local FOIs exist (North Yorkshire, Cumbria) they confirm police record-keeping but also show methodological limits: keyword searches, differing time ranges, and multiple-record possibilities for the same individual [5] [4].
4. The debate: public-harm protection vs. free speech concerns
Civil liberties groups and commentators warn that arresting people for posts that cause “annoyance,” “inconvenience” or “anxiety” risks chilling lawful expression; that critique is cited in the European Parliament question and media pieces referencing The Times [6]. Parliamentary speakers framed the rise as a “free speech emergency,” while also acknowledging the complexity of deciding when online words cause real harm and that many arrests relate to clearly harmful conduct (harassment, threats, hate incidents) [2]. Competing viewpoints exist in the sources: defenders argue these laws protect victims from real online harm; critics say police are stretched and laws drafted for a pre‑internet era are now being applied in problematic ways [3] [6].
5. Notable examples and media framing
High-profile arrests — such as those publicised in national outlets — have amplified scrutiny. The reporting cites cases like parents arrested after WhatsApp messages and public figures detained under suspicion of harassment or malicious communications; some forces later acknowledged mistakes or removed cautions [7] [1]. Media framing ranges from sober parliamentary briefings (Hansard, Lords Library) to polemical commentary (Forbes, Daily Mail), so readers should distinguish between the underlying custody figures and interpretive commentary [2] [7] [8].
6. Bottom line and what’s still unknown
Available sources show thousands of arrests annually for online posts, largely recorded under malicious communications and related harassment offences, with a commonly cited total of ~12,000 for 2023 and a rise to “more than 30 a day” compared with 2017 [1] [2] [3]. What’s not found in current reporting is a single official Home Office breakdown that confirms every force’s total for the specific statutes nationwide; central, offence‑level arrest data are not published, and some FOI returns were incomplete [3]. Readers should treat the 12,000/30‑a‑day figures as robust journalistic aggregates supported by FOI custody data but subject to the documented data‑collection limits described in parliamentary and library briefings [3] [2].