Check your content against UK speech law frameworks

DPP v Collins Explained: The Case That Defined Online Offensiveness

Published 9 July 2026

In 2006, the House of Lords heard an appeal about a man who left racist voicemails on his MP's answering machine. Brian Collins had been convicted under s.127 of the Communications Act 2003 for sending a message of a "grossly offensive" character. His appeal reached the highest court in the land — and Lord Bingham of Cornhill produced a judgment that has governed every online-speech prosecution in England and Wales for two decades.

Disclaimer: General information, not legal advice.

Jurisdiction: England and Wales.

DPP v Collins: Lord Bingham's Three Holdings "A message is grossly offensive if it would cause outrage, shock, or disgust to a reasonable person in an open and just multi-racial society" HOLDING 1: The Test Outrage, shock, or disgust — not mere offence HOLDING 2: Reasonable Person Objective, not the recipient. Contemporary standards. HOLDING 3: Mental element = awareness, not purpose You do not need to intend to cause outrage — awareness of the message's character is enough Source: DPP v Collins [2006] UKHL 40
Lord Bingham's three holdings in DPP v Collins [2006] UKHL 40.

The Facts

Brian Collins left racist voicemails for his MP using language that was, by any measure, grossly offensive. He was charged under s.127. He argued the messages were private communications between him and his MP — not public. The House of Lords rejected this: the test is objective, not dependent on the intended audience.

The Test

Lord Bingham held that "grossly offensive" means causing outrage, shock, or disgust to a reasonable person in an "open and just multi-racial society." Each word matters. Outrage = moral violation. Shock = sudden, jarring disturbance. Disgust = visceral revulsion. Only one needs to be satisfied. The reasonable person is objective — not the recipient, not the most easily offended. The "multi-racial society" framing anchors the test in contemporary, tolerant standards.

The Mental Element

The prosecution must prove the sender intended to send a message of the prohibited character, or was aware that it was. Purpose is not required. This is the single biggest reason s.127 dominates: awareness is dramatically easier to prove than purpose (MCA 1988) or intent (hatred provisions).

Why It Matters

Collins established the test for every s.127 prosecution. The Chambers case later added the context principle — but Collins is the foundation. Without Collins, there is no legal definition of "grossly offensive."

Sources

  • DPP v Collins [2006] UKHL 40
  • Chambers v DPP [2012] EWHC 2157 (Admin)
  • Communications Act 2003, s.127 — legislation.gov.uk