Christopher Spivey spared jail for Lee Rigby trolling

Christopher Spivey spared jail for Lee Rigby trolling

Photo from the BBC


We have looked many times at people being sent to prison for ‘trolling’, usually on twitter (see here, here, and here, for some random examples).

On 27th August 2015, Christopher Spivey, a 52 year old from Essex, narrowly escaped joining this list when he received a suspended sentence for his trolling.



Mr Spivey seems someone who holds somewhat unorthodox views. He ‘made a series of comments on social media‘ saying that the murder of Lee Rigbywas made up to provoke anti-Islamic feelings.

In addition, he posted photos and the addresses of members of Lee Rigby’s family and contacted his sister accusing her husband of being the same person as Mr Rigby.

He appeared to have wider delusions, posting on a website expressing “doubts as to whether the Tunisia beach massacre and the Glasgow bin lorry deaths happened“.




Mr Spivey was convicted after a trial, and is still maintaining his innocence (although it is not clear what his defence was).

There were, it seems, two offences – harassment and sending a grossly offensive message (probably under s127 Communications Act 2003).

These are both summary only offences to which the Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines apply (pages 70 and 34 respectively). On the Guidelines, the harassment probably merits a community order and the messages a similar sentence.

It would seem to me that the harassment is far more serious and clearly passes the custody threshold – it was targeted at members of Lee Rigby’s family and involved direct contact.

The messages posted on Facebook, though idiotic and offensive, do not appear to me to be necessarily beyond what is acceptable in a free society/protected speech under Art 10. On its own, it would not merit more than a community order (if a prosecution were necessary).

Mr Spivey was sentenced to 6 months, suspended for two years on conditions that weren’t included in the news reports. Although the decision to suspend means that there would not be any real complaint about the sentence, 6 months is the maximum sentence that could be passed and even without credit for a plea of guilty this seems a little on the high side.

But Mr Spivey has already stated that he will be appealing the conviction, so the Court will probably be looking at the sentence again in due course …


Dan is a barrister at 2 Dr. Johnson’s Buildings practising in crime.


  1. Be warned, Spivey has A LOT of supporters who do believe his crackpot conspiracy theories. They’ve already been hard at work on the Daily Mail story – red-arrowing any critical comments of him. Don’t be surprised if they also flood this comments forum in due course.

    I’m a staunch supporter of Chris Spivey and concur with him that the Woolwich incident wasn’t what it was reported to be.
    While he’s winning new readers on a daily basis, support for him within the Alternative Media isn’t as rock solid as he likes to believe.
    Can you comment on the fact that the witnesses statements used against him were not signed by the witnesses.
    Isn’t this grounds enough to win his appeal?