Public Order Flashcards
Outline the legislation that acts of public order are criminalized under?
Public Order Act 1986
Outline the definition of riot under s1 (1) of the Public Order Act 1986
Where 12 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using unlawful violence for the common purpose is guilty of riot.
It is immaterial whether the 12 or more use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously.
The common purpose may be inferred from conduct.
No person of reasonable firmness needs to actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.
Riot may be committed in private as well as in public places.
A person guilty of rioting is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or a fine or both.
Outline the actus reus of riot
12 or more people must share a common purpose to commit an act of violence & cause the victim to fear for their personal safety.
R v Sherlock (Kyle) [2014] + Mitsui Sumoitomo v The Mayor’s Office [2014]
Outline the men’s rea of riot
It must be proved that any person charged shared that common purpose & Intended to use violence or was aware that his conduct might amount to violence.
Outline the definition of violent disorder under s2 (1) of the Public Order Act 1986
Where 3 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using or threatening unlawful violence is guilty of violent disorder.
It is immaterial whether or not the 3 or more use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously.
No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.
Violent disorder may be committed in private as well as in public places.
A person guilty of violent disorder is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine or both, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.
Outline the actus reus of violent disorder
3 or more people must be present together must use or threat unlawful violence
Mahroof [2009] + Mechen [2004]
Outline the men’s rea of violent disorder
It must be proved that each defendant intended to use or threaten violence or that he / she was aware that his conduct might be violent or threaten violence
Church [2000]
Outline the definition of affray under s3 (1) of the Public Order Act 1986
A person is guilty of affray if he uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and his conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety.
Where 2 or more persons use or threaten unlawful violence, it is the conduct of them taken together that must be considered for the purposes of subsection (1).
For the purposes of this section a threat cannot be made by the use of words alone.
No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.
Affray may be committed in private as well as in public places.
A person guilty of affray is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or a fine or both, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.
Outline the actus reus of affray
There must be violence directed by the participants / offender at the person the violence is directed at, a person of reasonable firmness.
Davidson [1992] + Atkin v DPP [1989]
Outline the men’s rea of affray
The defendant intended to use / threaten violence or was aware that his conduct may be violent or amount to threatened violence.
Outline the offence of fear / provocation of violence under s4 (1) of the Public Order Act 1986
A person is guilty of an offence if he—
uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior, or
distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.
an offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behavior are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is distributed or displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.
a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.
Outline the actus reus of fear / provocation of violence
It must directed towards another, being threatening, abusive & insulting behavior.
Brutus v Couzens [1972] + Taft [1997] + Lewis v DPP [1995]
Outline the men’s rea of fear / provocation of violence
Intended his words or behavior towards the victim to be or was aware that they might be threatening, abusive, or insulting.
That he intended the victim to believe that immediate unlawful violence would be used against him or another; or
That he intended to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by the victim or another; or
That the victim was likely to believe that immediate unlawful violence would be used; or
Was likely that such violence would be provoked.
Outline the definition of harassment, alarm or distress under s5 (1) of the Public Order Act 1986
A person is guilty of an offence if he—
Uses threatening words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
Displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.
It is a defence for the accused to prove—
That he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or
That he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
That his conduct was reasonable.
Outline the actus reus of causing harassment, alarm or distress
An element of harassment, alarm or distress with connection at some point to a victim.
R (R) v DPP [2006] + Norwood v DPP [2003]
Outline the men’s rea of causing harassment, alarm or distress
The defendant intended his conduct to be threatening / abusive / disorderly or that they were aware that it might be so.
TRUE OR FALSE? There’s a defence of causing harassment, alarm or distress
True
There’s a defence of reasonableness (the defendant can try & argue that their conduct was reasonable), e.g Woodman v French Connection Ltd [2007]
Outline the issues with causing harassment, alarm or distress
The conduct doesn’t need to be directed at a victim.
The conduct element involves some disorderly behaviour which is hard to define.
Prohibition does cover exercises of freedom of expression, e.g Woodman v French Connection Ltd [2007]
