Court: Woman Charged Over Website Comment
This morning [Apr 2] a woman appeared in Magistrates Court, and was remanded in custody after she was charged with inciting or soliciting others to cause injury to Supreme Court Justice Carlyle Greaves.
Carolyn Drover, 43, faced the charges which were alleged to have occurred in January 2013. The Court heard the charges were said to have arisen out of a comment which was allegedly posted on the daily local newspaper’s website.
Ms Drover was charged with inciting or soliciting others to cause injury to Supreme Court Justice Carlyle Greaves while he was on duty. She also faced the charge of soliciting others to unlawfully assault Justice Greaves.
The Court heard she allegedly posted a comment with Justice Greaves home address, and saying someone should assault him. Duty Counsel Charles Richardson suggested the news outlet should be in Court for allegedly publishing the comment.
In remanding Ms Drover, Senior Magistrate said that “in this jurisdiction anyone who threatens a Supreme Court judge should not be allowed to walk about freely until trial….”
Senior Magistrate Archie Warner ordered that Ms Drover should be held in custody until her next court date of April 10th.
Read More About
Category: All, Court Reports, Crime, News
Serves her right
Fak’n right!!!
….and here we are harping about a media counsel…who needs one when it seems you can go to jail just as easy by posting some comment…..and then again, she used her real named at that. Something that most people don’t want to do. But i guess if your going to play the game of insults, your going to get caught one way or another.
What makes you think she used her real name?
Curious as to why her comments were posted as generally comments viewed as vindictive, personal or offensive are normally pulled….guess there are loopholes when it comes to freedom of speech…hopefully it will be a lesson learned
And that makes one think, shouldn’t the media company be punished for not properly filtering the comment?
Why should they be punished, she made the comments not them. peole need to accept responsibility for their actiosn and stop blaming others. Serves her right, she’ll certainly think twice before postig something like that again. You can always make your point without being nasty or vindictive.
Blogging threats against judges is wrong, and allowing bloggers to post them is wrong. Putting up addresses and calls for violence is a slippery slope it could spread to the police, prison officers, prosecutors making no one want to do the job. Imagine arresting and locking up these gang members then havin them know where you live!
When you do to a judge. You just not harm them but there family too!!!! Think first!
She wrote it with the intention of it being seen in a public forum. Whether its the websites POLICY or not to let it be posted is besides the point. You cannot threaten someones life and expect to get away with it.
It would be the same outcome if she shouted it out down at the flag pole or sent him an email directly.
all posts and comments have to be scrutinized before they are posted so yes the media company should be held responsible for posting it. if they can block a post with vile language in it why cant they stop a post like that.
Not on all websites.
Wow.
So this is setting an interesting precedent…
I infer that you mean ‘freedom of expression’ is not a privilege anymore.
When did it become acceptable to be jailed for words? Third world economy with a third world justice system.
How embarrassing that a woman’s words puts her in a jail cell.
How manly to accept that.
How is social media any different from a verbal threat? Do you have to beat someone into submission (or have them beaten) for it to count?
To constitute “a communication containing a threat”, a communication must be such that a reasonable person (1) would take the statement as a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily harm (the mens rea), and (2) would perceive such expression as being communicated to effect some change or achieve some goal through intimidation (the actus reus). A message is a “threat” if a reasonable recipient would tend to believe that the originator of the message was serious about his words and intended to effect the violence or other harm forewarned, regardless of the speaker’s actual motive for issuing the communication.
Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person with the specific intent that the statement made verbally in writing or by means of an electronic communication device is to be taken as a threat even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out which on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal unconditional immediate and specific as to convey to the person threatened a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety.
It is not necessary for the victim to actually be placed in fear of imminent serious bodily injury or for the accused to have the capability or the intention to actually carry out the threat. The offense is completed if the accused, by his threat, sought as a desired reaction, to place a person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.
I think there should be guide lines to what is illegal to say on a web page. Although the comment the woman made was directed to a person the question I have is there a law against what a person says on a web page? Is it any different when it is said about a person accused of a crime. There have been many time I have seen comment made by people that have been directed to a person to do harm. And I’m sure the length of red tape would be a mile long for that person to press charges. If this woman truly wanted to cause harm to the judge would she have the intelligence to do it in a manner that wouldn’t it be in her best interest not to incriminate herself. I’m sure that the judge knows the comment was like many he may have receive in the line of work that he does. Let this woman go free. there is so much more positive things you can do with your power as a judge.
when people are going to jail/ getting fined for threats made by text message, then website comments are fair game too.
People have been sent to jail for sending threatening texts.
what part of
YOU NEVER THREATEN A HIGH COURT JUDGE DONT YOU UNDERSTAND!
Thanks
Oh Wow… So much for registering to post a comment. Real question is did the daily newspaper sell out the lady.
They should be held up on charges, its their paper!
@dont believe the hype
it is against the law to make such comments, whether in person, in an email or in a text message. As far as you thinking the judge should ignore the comments, keep in mind this woman allegedly posted his home address on the website. Every threat has to be taken seriously these days as more and more ppl are caring out the threats. If you dont know, go to the police website and look at the amount assaults that take place daily.
Warner would bail someone for assault in a heartbeat, but when things hit a little closer to home he doesn’t grant bail. You’re a joke, Mr. Warner.
Either way, this can’t possibly hold up in a court of law unless they pull out a dictionary and point out definitions of words and say “Well, in the broad sense of this word, it is illegal” like the whole ‘using an iPod while riding’ fiasco that happened 2 years ago.
“In remanding Ms Drover, Senior Magistrate said that “in this jurisdiction anyone who threatens a Supreme Court judge should not be allowed to walk about freely until trial….”
But those up on charges for gun and other violent offenses against ordinary citizens are perfectly A-OK to be walking around huh? What a crock.
You hit the nail on the head… and lets not forget the weak punishment set by the judges for sexual offenses against minors…. this seems to be a bit more than necessary to me. Tax payers money paying to feed her for an angry comment, while, like you stated the gun toting gangsters are set free to rule the island…. makes all the sense in the world!
If you actually go to the court hearings, which are public, you find out the mitigating reasons why…and usually the prosecution comes up the reasons if a plea deal is worked out…quite bizare, but true.
That’s because judges, like PLP politicians, believe they are closer to god than the rest of us.
Don’t threaten a judge and don’t sit in the front pew in church.
Judges are sentencing people to jail. Protecting the public by locking away criminals and you think it’s perfectly fine for people to share their addresses? Are you serious?
People are afraid to testify against criminals (shooters, thieves, etc.)for fear of revenge. Imagine a judge. Imagining the perp getting your address handed to him as you take the stand…
Shouldn’t all high profile government employees addresses be known?
By the way. What proof do they have that this woman posted the message.
I can sign up with my enemies name and have him carted off to jail.
Such silly laws.
The only way I could even see the prosecution having a leg to stand on is by havng a warrent for her IP address. Without that any decent lawyer will tear them apart.
I do agree that this woman should not have posted that comment HOWEVER this is the second time in a matter of weeks that the judgement of what the acting editor of the daily is choosing to publish has been called into question- just about 2 wks ago a very tasteless race fuelled letter to the editor was printed that had ALL of our politicians horrified and the Premier even said he was going to write a letter to the acting editor letting him know this was unacceptable…and now this comment was allowed to be published. Perhaps someone with better judgement should be the acting editor of the paper so we don’t have to be subjected to any more nonsense becoming available to public viewing!!
recent murders of US prosecutors should silence anyone who thinks this woman has been harshly dealt with.
agreed!
Agreed.
Agreed.
Agreed as well.
And again. How many lives have these prosecutors ruined?
The people deciding to commit the crimes ruined their own lives. If a person murders someone and gets that individual ruined the victim’s life, the victim’s family’s lives and their own. Not the the prosecuter.
Curious that noone names the media outlet.
You have to eat the loquats before they ferment. It said the daily paper.
It is named above. What is actually curious here is another story which just reported it as a threat without saying where it was allegedly made.
@Loquatz– it says “daily paper” we only have one daily paper…;) rg.
Read again and drink some coffee before you do.
Sorry that comment was for Loquatz. Better drink some coffee myself.
Listen….just as Bernews “moderates” any comment before it is posted and refuses to post threatening, offensive or unlawful comments so should the Royal Gazette. The Gazette is an established media organisation and the first to say no regulation of the industry is needed yet they allow this stuff to be published to the whole world via their webpage? Yes she bears some responsibility if she sent the comment to the RG….but surely they bear even greater blame and should be more responsible for posting a comment which is said to have openly threatened a judge!!!
AGREED
If someone scrawls hateful or slanderous graffiti on the exterior wall of your house in the night for the public to see, should you be brought to court with them?
The RG provides a forum and an outlet for expression. If people use it to break the law (as, allegedly, here) they alone should be held to account. Hopefully that is what this case will demonstrate.
Agreed. When you send a threatening text, is the phone company liable? I agree, the online media should be held to a higher standard, but they are just the conduit.
You can’t compare an online forum to a text message! Phone companies don’t have the option of screening texts like online media companies do. Furthermore, text messages are sent to select individuals, not published to the world!
Don’t get me wrong. I think this person should be held accountable for her actions, but if the media company isn’t reprimanded, what incentive do they have to screen any future offensive posts? They’re more than just a conduit.
Why do you wish to loose your right to freedom of expression?
I agree to an extent. That is what I meant by a higher standard. “Publication” in legal terms is a difficult thing to get a handle on. A text message is publication under the strictest interpretation.
@ O’Brian,
I’m trying to figure out how comparing graffiti on a house or wall to this story makes any sense. One has nothing to do with the other. Both parties are responsible. The woman because she was stupid enough to write it, and the RG for being stupid enough to post it.
P.S. Lets remember who the website belongs too.
if she posted a threat on Facebook would facebook be held liable or her? Any website has control over screening comments. But it can be impractical and costly. If someone breaks the law they pay the price.
While it is not illegal to call someone names, it is illegal to threaten the life of ANYONE – judge or not. She is charged with committing a serious offense and should pay for it if guilty. My response would be the same if she had uttered teh same threats against anyone! Whether she posted it on a website, printed it on fliers that she posted on the street ot texted it to a friend – YOU JUST DONT DO THAT!!
I thought she was alleged to, or has she pled guilty already?
LOL
so much for freedom of speach…
We still have free speech.
You are allowed to disagree with the judge. You are allowed to say his judgment stinks, or that he’s bad at his job. That’s an opinion. That is free speech.
Free speech does not mean you can publish someone’s home address and encourage someone to go there and harm the occupants. That is not free speech; it’s a crime. In fact, allowing that type of thing could quickly lead to free speech being compromised.
“…so much for freedom of speach…”
What a stupid comment. Freedom of speech (not speach) does not include threatening someone.
Ms. Drover should knows how to start a conversation.
As one who has been a frequent victim of selected censorship I find it to be ironic what is allowed to be publish and what is considered to be
the freedom of the press all in thwe name of freedom of speech?
Alvin, Let’s make it very simple (for obvious reasons).
Would it be ok with you if I were to publish your home address and encourage people to go to your house and do physical harm to you and your family?
Would you think “Oh great, that’s free speech”?
Or would you think “Er, wait a minute, I don’t like the sound of that”?
It’s only one judge….God..hope you F boys are ready
Boy threatens to chop up 3 people with a machete. Bail 5,000, you’re free to go.
Uh hello people…if someone put MY address in public and told people to come assault me, what would you tell me to do?
Judges are people too. Sometimes we don’t know all The facts that they do, Other times maybe They’ve made mistakes. I have, And my boss has been very kind about it. What about the people who live next door to the judge? How do you think they feel? I think that woman’s folly Was giving people directions. What was she thinking??? If it was me, I would want her ass in jail.
Free speech or not, for this woman to be remanded in custody is shocking and smacks of cronyism. This is a complete waste of tax payers money. More so, if these supposed ‘learned’ judges put so much emphasis on gun, knife and child sex crimes, then maybe we would all be better off. This woman is going to jail over some words, yet murders and rapists roam the streets without fear of any punishment. How is this morally acceptable.
I say we completely overhaul the court system and replace all the judges with people who have the strength and courage to stand up for Bermuda’s laws and citizens and adequately punish criminals.
For instance, what is the fascination in Bermuda for people to be sentenced concurrently? Surely if u commit 2 crimes, u should have to serve 2 sentences? Though that is what logic dictates, this is never the case on this island. So the moral of the story is, if you are going to break the law, u may as well break a whole bunch, because the punishment will be the same.
I think it’s good that people are allowed their say here without being edited, and if its offensive than whomever it offends can take whatever steps necessary or if their comments are breaking the law let justice be served. I hope the editor continues to allow people the freedom to speak their minds regardless of what they are saying as long as real names are attached for any actions if necessary