Question Example Practice Flashcards
SPARROW uses threatening language towards DIXON with the intention of causing him to fear unlawful violence. DIXON is in a dwelling and SPARROW wishes to enter, but DIXON is not threatened by this behaviour. In relation to Section 4 Public Order Act 1986, which of the following is correct?
SPARROW has committed the offence regardless of whether DIXON feels threatened
SPARROW has used threatening language towards DIXON, intending him to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him. This offence can be committed in public or private - the only exception is when both parties are inside dwellings.
MATLOCK buys a t-shirt with a picture of a Ku Klux Klan hood on the front, intending to harass his African-Caribbean neighbour VALENTINE with the image. While sitting in his living room, MATLOCK sees VALENTINE and his girlfriend LOCK in the street outside and immediately puts the t-shirt on, goes to the window and bangs on it to gain VALENTINE’S attention. VALENTINE sees the t-shirt but just thinks MATLOCK is an idiot and is not concerned. However, his girlfriend LOCK is very alarmed by the insulting image and decides to call the police to make a complaint. Has MATLOCK committed the offence of intentional harassment, alarm or distress contrary to Section 4A Public Order Act 1986?
Yes, the offence has been committed as it includes another person other than the intended victim being caused harassment, alarm or distress
The offence has been committed in these circumstances. It does not matter who was caused harassment, alarm or distress, as long as someone was.
POOM and DOBBS are two 15-year-old youths who are having an argument in the school playground during their morning break. Intending that DOBBS will believe him, POOM tells him that if he does not hand over his dinner money at midday he will kick his head in when he finishes school that day. Has an offence of Fear or Provocation of Violence, contrary to Section 4 Public Order Act 1986 been committed?
No, as the violence threatened by POOM is not immediate
The offence has not been committed in these circumstances because POOM does not intend DOBBS to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used - the threat is a delayed one.
LIM is walking her large dog on the beach when she sees CROWN walking towards her. LIM hates CROWN because she once stole some money from her. LIM approaches CROWN and shouts, “I’m going to count to ten, then set my dog on you, so you had better start running.” As LIM is shouting, she shakes the dog’s lead and pulls the dog towards CROWN, who runs off feeling terrified. A passing member of the public witnesses the incident and is frightened. Has an offence of Affray been committed contrary to Section 3 Public Order Act 1986?
Yes, LIM used the dog to threaten unlawful violence
LIM has threatened unlawful violence towards CROWN, by setting her dog on her. A hypothetical bystander of reasonable firmness at the scene would fear for his personal safety. In this instance, an actual bystander does just that. Note that for affray, a threat cannot be made by words alone - but in this instance, LIM accompanies her words by shaking the dog’s lead and pulling the dog towards CROWN.
The Ambassador Casino has recently opened in the centre of Sanford. Normally admission is restricted to members only, but the manager decides to hold an open evening, where non-members can come into the casino for an admission fee of £5, provided they are over 21 years of age. During the open evening, JAYCOCK accuses another card-player, ATCHINSON, or cheating. He picks up a chair and throws it at ATCHINSON. Does JAYCOCK commit an offence of affray contrary to Section 3 Public Order Act 1986?
Yes, because the offence can be committed in public or private
The offence can be committed in public or private. JAYCOCK has used unlawful violence towards ATCHINSON by throwing a chair at him. A bystander of reasonable firmness would fear for his personal safety.
Whilst on patrol you see PHILLIPS in his dwelling house, shouting and swearing to people passing by on the pavement. Do you have a power of entry to deal with this behaviour as an offence under Section 5 Public Order Act 1986?
No, as the offence is triable summarily and has no power of entry
Part of the definition of Section 2 Public Order Act 1986 refers to the use or threatened use of unlawful violence. The Act provides a definition of violence. Which one of the following would fall within that definition of unlawful violence and taken in conduction with other factors, would mean that an offence contrary to Section 2 has been committed?
Four gang members are walking along the street when they see a vehicle containing members of a rival gang. They shout abuse and throw stones at the vehicle. None of the stones hit the vehicle.
There is a requirement for three or more persons, present together, using or threatening unlawful violence. This can include violence towards property.
SMITH appears in the Crown Court accused of an offence of ‘Putting People in Fear of Violence’ Contrary to s4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 however the jury find him not guilty of this offence. Could the court still find SMITH guilty of harassment contrary to section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act as an alternative, even if he has not been charged with this offence?
Yes. S4(5) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 states: “If on the trial on indictment of a person charged with an offence under this section the jury find him not guilty of the offence charged, they may find him guilty of an offence under section 2 or 2A”
DEMPSEY and MAKEPEACE are boyfriend and girlfriend however an argument takes place during which, DEMPSEY slaps MAKEPEACE across the face. The relationship ends. Four months later, MAKEPEACE is in a new relationship when DEMPSEY turns up and threatens violence against MAKEPEACE’S new boyfriend. Could the 2 incidents amount to a course of conduct toward an offence contrary to s2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997?
No. See Lau v DPP 2000: For a course of conduct there only needs to be a minimum of two incidents however the fewer incidents and the further apart they are spread makes it less likely to constitute a course of conduct. For an offence under s2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the courts are looking for a pattern of behaviour where the offender has embarked upon a sequence of events which harasses another. In any case, the first incident happened whilst they were still in a relationship, so it could not be shown that this was done to the girlfriend and the second was directed toward the new boyfriend.
BURNSIDE is the ex-husband of ACKLAND. BURNSIDE is in court charged with an offence of stalking, contrary to s4a of the Protection form Harassment Act 1997. However, on the day of the trial, ACKLAND attends court and tells the prosecutor she is too fearful to give evidence and if compelled, she will only speak favourably of BURNSIDE so as not to make him angry. The prosecutor decides to offer no evidence as it is deemed there is no realistic prospect of conviction and the case is discontinued. Could the court still make a restraining order to protect ACKLAND from BURNSIDE?
Yes. S5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 states: “A court before which a person (‘the defendant’) is acquitted of an offence may, if it considers it necessary to do so to protect a person from harassment by the defendant, make an order prohibiting the defendant from doing anything described in the order.” An ‘acquittal’ under section 5A of the PHA 1997 means any occasion when proceedings are dismissed following the hearing of evidence at trial. This interpretation of the word would also include the situation when the prosecution offers no evidence with regard to the substantive charge: R (O) v Stratford Youth Court [2004] EWHC 1553 (Admin).
You are speaking to BROWLOW who tells you that one of his patients, CONWAY, will not stop bothering him; he has been receiving emails to his work email address from an unknown sender containing random words and a gift (a stuffed cat) has been sent to his home address. BROWNLOW tells you that CONWAY has been following him in his car and has also seen him loitering outside his home at night. BROWNLOW lives 80 miles from CONWAY. He has also been receiving “friend requests” to his Facebook account from unknown users and CONWAY repeatedly books appointments at the surgery, specifically asking to see DR. BROWNLOW. The behaviour started shortly after CONWAY made a complaint about BROWNLOW that he had not listened to him properly during a consultation 5 months ago. BROWNLOW is at his wits end and feels scared to leave his home. He has changed his routes to and from work and has had to take time off work due to suffering anxiety. With regards to crime recording, what would be the most appropriate action to take?
4a
