Reading the legislation wrt the misuse of communications act 2003 it seems apparent if reports in the Mail are to be believed that KS incriminated herself. It looks like during police interview the officers asked her questions with regards to the points to prove to make out the offence and for want of a better word she 'coughed' to them.
- That she used a public communications network. She used Twitter that isn't in dispute. In fact she appears to have aggravated this by creating two more accounts after agreeing to avoid contact. Possibly a classic error leading to indisputable intent.
- She used the network to cause annoyance or distress. It appears that her tweets were directed (unlike Harry's) and she appears to have admitted in interview that she knew they would 'get at' the complainant. I would say that a reasonable person would say that wanting to 'get at' someone could reasonably be interpreted as an intent to cause anxiety or annoyance.
- The message was construed as grossly offensive. Now, I am surprised the solicitor in concern did not chase this particular point. Is 'pig in a wig' or repeated misgendering grossly offensive? If the CPS were unable to prove this then I suspect it would have resulted in a different outcome but, without challenge the assumption must have been that it was grossly offensive.
As much as attacking the complainants history seemed a good ploy the judge was probably interested in this particular event. It would be similar to saying that anybody convicted of a historic of fence should not be allowed recourse to the law. I'm not sure most are really comfortable with that idea. Of course I understand that is not likely to be a prevailing opinion on here with regards to this case.
Support outside although apparently appreciative probably didn't help if reports were right that chants of pig in a wig and he's a man were heard. This may be misreported by the Mail, I don't know? Whatever you think of the complainant imagine substituting that chant for something considered derogatory but factually true about an ethnic minority coupled with a truthful statement about the colour of their skin? Perhaps a bit of an own goal but I'm sure KS liked it though.
As for Harryy, his tweets were lighter and not directed and on the face of it, his intentions were not criminal. Perhaps meant to poke fun at trans people but on the face of it they said more about him than transsexuals as a group. An experienced police officer would have done well to direct him to the Humber where he could easily placate his wish to be a fish and offer him some information about TDOR or invite him to an event to show him it 'is a thing'. The judge was sensible in his judgement though that the officer in concern over stepped the mark (probably through inexperience) and that we are not in a repeat of 1984. Of course he was also right to deny Harry the bigger prize of ripping up COP guidelines. The implications of that have far greater reach than trans people and the likely recognition that this could open the gates to open season on all minorities with a stated case to support decisions in this manner.
I don't personally see Harry getting anywhere with an appeal for this reason however if KS has a solicitor who argues what is grossly offensive successfully an appeal may work on a technicality. Due to her coughing in interview denial of the actions themselves are not in my opinion plausible. Also I don't think there will be much recourse as to an unusually strong punishment as a very small fine and costs is probably at the lower end of the scale.
It's all only an opinion but to me at least it makes sense of today's respective judgements.