Joey Barton - Offensive or Illegal?

Joey Barton’s legal problems have continued to grow, the High Court recently over-turned a decision by a District Judge to dismiss a prosecution for assault (although that has resolved following the discontinuance of proceedings). He has since been charged with conveying an indecent or offensive message, for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety, between 3 and 8 January 2024. The charge has seemingly been narrowed since the case arrived at the Crown Court as the original announcement from Greater Manchester Police stated the period was from 1 to 18 January 2024.

This relates to a series of tweets made about the former Chelsea and England footballer Eni Aluko.

Mr Barton appeared at Manchester Crown Court on 27 August 2024 for what is known as a Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing. This is simply where a Defendant enters a Not Guilty plea and case management directions are made. There will have been directions made for the Prosecution to disclose material and for Mr Barton to provide what is known as a defence statement (i.e. a description of why he is not guilty and what matters are in issue for trial).

The trial was, unusually for an offence of its type, fixed for trial on 19 May 2025. Whilst this may seem a lengthy delay, in reality it is far sooner than most trials are being fixed where the Defendant is on bail.

There are two separate offences that Mr Barton could have been charged with.

The most straight forward would have been an offence of Section 127 Malicious Communications. This need only require that the message was grossly offensive, obscene or indecent and that at the time of sending, Mr Barton intended his message be grossly offensive to those to whom it related; or that he was aware at the time of sending that it might be taken to be so by a reasonable member of the public who read or saw it.

Instead, the Prosecution have charged Mr Barton with a Section 1 Malicious Communications Act offence. This requires the prosecution to prove, in terms of state of mind, that Mr Barton’s purpose, or one such purpose, is that the tweet should cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom it is intended that the message or its contents or nature should be communicated.

Mr Barton has made reference previously to Human Rights protections, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights ('ECHR') expressly protects speech that offends, shocks, and disturbs. It will likely be a matter left to the jury whether the tweets are viewed as unattractive or have gone too far such to be considered oppressive and unacceptable.

The first Tweet that the prosecution is understood to relate to read “How is she even talking about Men’s football. She can’t even kick a ball properly. Your coverage of the game EFC last night, took it to a new low. Eni Aluko and Lucy Ward, the Fred and Rose West of football commentary”.

ITV subsequently defended the commentary team at which point Mr Barton tweeted “On reflection, I feel I’ve been a tad harsh on Eni Aluko by comparing her to Rose West. Had a bit of time to consider the impact of my words…”

Mr Barton then said Ms Aluko was “clearly in the Joseph Stalin/Pol Pot category”, as she had “murdered” millions of football fans’ ears.



The trial is fixed for May 2025.