Rising Arrests For Malicious Communications on Teesside Sparks Free Speech Debate...
- Cleveland Police Exposed
- Apr 9
- 4 min read
The numbers of people on Teesside being arrested & prosecuted for crimes under the Malicious Communications Act is leaving many fearing free speech in the UK is being eroded !
9th April 2025
Data obtained through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request has shed a disturbing light on the number of arrests made on Teesside under Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, revealing a fluctuating but significant trend over the past few years.
The figures recently disclosed by Cleveland Police reveal—11 arrests were made back in 2019, with a sharp rise to 41 in 2020, peaking at 51 in 2021, then declining to 35 in 2022, 32 in 2023, and then 11 in the first nine months of 2024—painting an picture of increasing enforcement of this law, especially during the pandemic years. These arrests, reportedly tied to offenses such as sending offensive, threatening, or false communications, have reignited a broader conversation about the balance between policing harmful behaviour and protecting freedom of speech in the UK.
For comparison, arrests under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which covers similar offenses like sending menacing or obscene messages via public networks, also show a rising trend: with 17 in 2019, 24 in 2020, 19 in 2021, 32 in 2022, 59 in 2023, and 29 in 2024 (up to October 28).
The spike in 2023 under this legislation suggests that authorities on Teesside are increasingly turning to these laws to address online and communication-based offenses especially those undertaken on social media platforms such as Facebook & X (Formally Twitter). But what do these numbers mean for the state of free expression in Britain?
The Malicious Communications Act: A Double-Edged Sword
The Malicious Communications Act 1988 was only ever originally designed to tackle serious harassment, such as poison pen letters or threatening messages, with the intent to cause distress or anxiety deemed a key factor in prosecution.
However, its broad wording—covering communications deemed “indecent,” “offensive,” or “threatening”—has led to its application in a wide range of cases, some of which critics argue stretch the boundaries of what should be considered criminal. On Teesside, the data indicates an eagerness by Cleveland Police to use this law, particularly during periods of heightened social tension, such as the pandemic or the 2024 Summer Riots, when online interactions surged.
The 2020-2021 spike (41 and 51 arrests, respectively) aligns with a time when lockdowns pushed more communication online, potentially increasing opportunities for conflict or perceived offenses. Yet, the decline in arrests in 2024 (11 so far) might suggest either a cooling-off period or a perhaps shift in Cleveland Police's enforcement priorities. Regardless, these figures highlight how laws intended to protect can also ensnare individuals in legal battles over subjective terms like “Grossly offensive,” raising questions about where the line should be drawn.
A National Case: Parents vs. the State
This tension came into sharp focus recently with a high-profile national case involving parents who were arrested under the same Malicious Communications Act after criticizing their child’s school. In late 2024, a couple from the Midlands faced arrest following a series of online posts and letters in which they accused school staff of mismanagement and neglect. The parents claimed their communications were a legitimate exercise of their right to voice concerns, but authorities deemed the content threatening and offensive, leading to their detention.
The case has sparked outrage among free speech advocates, who argue that the arrests represent an overreach of state power. Organisations like the Free Speech Union have pointed to it as evidence that vague legislation like the Malicious Communications Act is being weaponised to silence dissent, even when it’s directed at institutions rather than individuals. On the other side, supporters of the arrests contend that public safety and the prevention of harassment justify such measures, particularly when communications cross into personal attacks or intimidation.
Freedom of Speech Under Threat
The Teesside arrest data and the Midlands parents’ case together underscore a growing debate in the UK: how far should the law go in policing speech? The Malicious Communications Act, alongside the Communications Act 2003, gives police significant latitude to intervene in cases of perceived harm. Yet, what one person sees as a justified critique, another might interpret as a malicious attack. This subjectivity is at the heart of the controversy.
Perhaps more concerning is that in January 2021, former Hartlepool Ward Councillor Tony Richardson was jailed for six weeks after its claimed he shared an image on social media that was perceived to be 'Grossly Offensive', The post reportedly related to a photo he shared likening an immigrant trying to claim benefits to a dog.
On Teesside, the peak of 51 arrests in 2021 suggests that the police has not shied away from using these powers. But without detailed breakdowns of the cases—whether they involved genuine threats or merely heated arguments—it’s impossible to assess the proportionality of the response. Nationally, the Maxie Allen & Rosalind Levine, from Borehamwood arrest case has amplified calls for reform, with critics arguing that the law’s broad scope risks chilling freedom of expression, especially in an era when social media amplifies every grievance.