What are the specific UK laws (like section 127) used to arrest people for online speech, and how have convictions trended in recent years?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The primary statutes used to arrest people for online speech in the UK are section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, with new criminal offences in the Online Safety Act 2023 adding higher penalties for certain online harms; parliamentary and media scrutiny shows tens of thousands of arrests under those provisions but far fewer convictions, which have fallen significantly over the past decade [1] [2] [3] [4]. Data compiled from Freedom of Information requests and parliamentary records indicate about 12,183 arrests in 2023 under sections 127 and 1, with roughly 1,119 convictions—fewer than 10%—and government sources and commentators report a decline in convictions compared with earlier years [2] [5] [6].
1. The legal toolkit: what the laws actually say
Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to send by means of a public electronic communications network a message that is “grossly offensive” or of an indecent or menacing character, and criminalises use of a network to cause “annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety,” with summary conviction historically carrying up to six months’ imprisonment or a fine [1] [3]. Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 targets communications which are indecent or grossly offensive or which convey a threat or false information intended to cause distress, and prosecutors are advised to particularise whether a charge alleges grossly offensive, indecent or menacing content [3].
2. Newer instruments: the Online Safety Act’s criminal offences
The Online Safety Act 2023 created new criminal offences that overlap with and in some cases replace parts of section 127 (notably the “needless anxiety” limb), and those offences carry stiffer maximum penalties — reported as up to 51 weeks’ imprisonment on conviction — which has already produced dozens of prosecutions and some early convictions since the Act came into force in October 2023 [4].
3. Arrests versus convictions: the headline numbers
FOI data collated and reported by The Times and referenced in parliamentary debate show 12,183 arrests in 2023 under sections 127 and 1, while Hansard and Lords parliamentary contributions cite that of those arrested only around 1,119 people were convicted and sentenced that year—under 10% of arrests—illustrating a vast gap between enforcement action and prosecutorial outcomes [1] [2].
4. Trends over time: convictions declining, arrests rising
Multiple sources and official briefings signal a downward trend in convictions for communications offences over the past decade: government data and media analysis note a sharp fall from nearly 2,000 convictions in 2015 to about 1,119 in 2023, even as arrest figures have surged, a pattern that has alarmed civil liberties groups and prompted calls for reform or repeal of section 127 [6] [1] [7].
5. Context and competing explanations for the divergence
Authorities and police forces point out that “communications” offences cover a wide array of conduct — from social media posts to hoax emergency calls and serious domestic-abuse communications — and that custody-record counts used in FOI returns can conflate different offence types and thresholds, which complicates simple interpretations that every arrest was for a trivial tweet [8]. Conversely, free-speech advocates and some parliamentarians argue the scale of arrests, even when many do not lead to conviction, has a chilling reputational and deterrent effect and may reflect overly broad policing of expression [9] [2].
6. Fault lines and policy responses
The debate has spawned petitions and political pressure to reform or repeal section 127 and to clarify prosecutorial guidance; the Crown Prosecution Service continues to emphasise careful charge drafting and the need to particularise alleged limbs of offences, while critics point to the new Online Safety Act penalties as raising the stakes for online expression [3] [7] [4]. Reporting on the issue has relied heavily on FOI custody figures assembled by The Times, and while those figures powerfully illustrate enforcement volume, they require careful unpacking to assess legal thresholds, charging decisions and eventual convictions [1] [2].