Rhodri Philipps has been sentenced to 12 weeks, convicted of sending malicious communications.
In his defence, the Viscount argued that his Facebook comments were "meant to be a form of satire … understood and accepted by everyone who knows me". He would not have made any serious threat, he said, "on an account where I could easily be identified".
The most high profile victim of the posts, Gina Miller, said she found the posts “genuinely shocking” to the extent of feeling “violated”.
So when does a joke cross the line to become a criminal offence?
In the notorious 'Twitter Joke Trial' of Paul Chambers, accused of tweeting a 'threat' to blow up Robin Hood Airport, the Court of Appeal held that "if the person or persons who receive or read it, or may reasonably be expected to receive, or read it, would brush it aside as a silly joke, or a joke in bad taste, or empty bombastic or ridiculous banter, then it would be a contradiction in terms to describe it as a message of a menacing character … a message which does not create fear or apprehension in those to whom it is communicated, or who may reasonably be expected to see it, falls outside this provision, for the very simple reason that the message lacks menace".
So was it foreseeable that Ms Miller would see the posts? The Viscount argued in Court that he posted in the belief that he was publishing to only a closed circle of 'Facebook friends'. With every user capable of sharing the content outside the circle, is there ever such a thing?
At his Westminster Magistrates' Court trial Philipps claimed the post about Ms Miller was a "joke" and a "conversation piece for his Facebook friends".