Supreme Court rules “ragebait” is valid legal defence
The UK’s highest court sided with Imperial students in two out of three crucial test cases focusing on crimes that involved “ragebaiting”.
The decision reversed earlier court rulings that denied the possibility of ragebaiting as a plausible and honest reason for harmful and destructive acts. Previously, these offences only identified the defendants’ intention, knowledge, recklessness, and state of mind. Now, the significance of ragebait will also be heavily weighted.
A group of Imperial CGCU students were challenging a Court of Appeal ruling which found that it was unlawful for the undergraduate engineers to design small bombs and set them off in house party bathrooms.
The Supreme Court heard three cases in the joint appeal, the second successful group being a circle of ICSM fourth-year medics intercalating in gastroenterology. The future doctors had faced legal action after they gave out medical advice specifically with the intention of encouraging the development of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) to targeted individuals.
The medics participated in this project with a group of BSc Economics, Finance, and Data Science students from Imperial College Business School – the third, unsuccessful party found to be pursuing the startup for purely financial incentives.
A representative for the medical students, Wowen Ilkinson, informed NegaFelix that he is apologetic for his actions. “The NHS has needed to recognise that humour is an effective cure for a long time,” he announced on Tuesday. “My colleagues and I, while we had intention for the consequences, were working purely on the grounds of ragebaiting. I personally wanted my flatmate to have a memorable bathroom experience after he smoked my last cigarette outside the lung health lecture.”
None of the medical students’ licences have been revoked.
Delivering the court’s decision, Lord Gackson said the engineers had a fiduciary duty – an obligation to put the house party guests’ needs above their own – but the court disagreed.
“If all jokes were made with every member of the general public in mind,” Menry Hilne, one final-year engineer from ‘The Bath Bomb Project’, told us. “Then no jokes would ever be made.”
Hilne’s lawyer argued that this conflicted with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, or the Human Rights Act 1998, which covers freedom from interference. The exercise of freedom of expression can be restricted if it is necessary and prescribed by law for reasons such as preventing disorder or crime.
“There was no disorder,” argued engineer Huke Ledley. “There was by no means any more disorder than some of the house party bathrooms I’ve had to personally deal with.”
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, there has been great political unrest with the newfound uncertainty and speculation on “ragebaiting”. A spokesperson, Feb Senton, said the government “respected the judgement” and it would “work with regulators and the stand-up industry to work out the impact.”
