Online race-hate pair to petition Supreme Court

The move by Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle follows the decision of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division to certify three points of law in the case – although it denied permission to appeal, meaning the pair have to petition the Supreme Court directly.

Lawyers for the two confirmed yesterday that they would be filing petitions with the Supreme Court.

The case will raise important issues about whether material placed on the internet counts as written material and whether the courts have jurisdiction in cases involving material posted online from abroad.

Sheppard, 52, and Whittle, 42, were jailed at Leeds Crown Court in July last year after being convicted of Public Order Act charges of publishing and distributing racially inflammatory material and possessing such material with a view to distribution.

Sheppard, 52, of Brook Street, Selby, North Yorkshire, was convicted of 16 offences and Whittle, 42, of Avenham Lane, Preston, Lancashire, of five.

In January the Court of Appeal rejected their appeals against conviction, but reduced Sheppard's sentence of four years and 10 months by a year and Stephen Whittle's term of two years and four months by six months.

The Court has now certified three issues in the case as a point of law of general public importance.

These cover whether a document stored in a computer memory and/or displayed on a screen is written material within the meaning of Section 29 of the Public Order Act 1986, the issue of the correct test of jurisdiction for criminal cases involving or arising from the use of the internet, and whether, for the purposes of Section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986, making material generally accessible or available to placing or offering it to the public via the internet counts as publication to the public or a section of the public.

During the appeal in January, Sheppard's counsel, Adrian Davies, challenged the convictions on the grounds of jurisdiction, the meaning of "publication" and whether material on the internet was "written material" within the meaning of the Act.

The articles were posted on a website in California, where they were "entirely lawful and enjoyed the highest degree of constitutional protection under the laws of the United States", he said.