Woman is fined for tweeting name of Le Vell ‘victim’
Deborah Armstrong, 37, wrote on her Twitter account: “I hope Michael Le Vell’s victim... now goes public” – and identified the female involved.
It was re-tweeted and when pointed out to her that her tweet was breaking the law she told others: “You are not my judge and jury.”
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdYesterday Armstrong, of St Gregory’s Close, Bedale, was fined £110 after pleading guilty to an offence under the Sexual Offences Amendment Act on September 10, last year, of publishing information that could lead to members of the public identifying a complainant in a sexual offences case.
Fran Gough, prosecuting, told Manchester Magistrates’ Court that the law gives lifelong anonymity to complainants in a sex offence case and nothing must be published that can identify them.
Ms Gough said the trial of actor Mr Le Vell for sex offences attracted widespread media interest. He was acquitted of all charges.
But at the end of the trial Armstrong, using her Twitter account of @DebbieJ1976, tweeted the identity of the complainant in the case because, Miss Gough said, “she was angry at the perceived injustice of the acquittal”.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdPolice tracked Armstrong down and she was arrested a month later.
Armstrong, who had no previous convictions and is understood to be her mother’s full-time carer, admitted to officers she did not immediately delete the tweet but later did so and closed her account.
Passing sentence, District Judge Khalid Qureshi said: “It’s not like the old days where it’s a quiet chat in the pub, this becomes public within minutes.
“I accept there was no malice behind the issue. Complainants of the subject of these types of offences need every encouragement that if they have the courage of their convictions they will have the protection of anonymity of this type, whatever the outcome.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide Ad“The fear is, I dare not make a complaint because somebody might put my name on Twitter.
“The offence carries only a financial penalty. That’s Parliament’s decision, in my view these cases could be looked at far more seriously in terms of sanction.”
Armstrong was fined £110 and ordered to pay £85 costs and a victim surcharge of £20.