112:
officer can be a person likely to be caused harassment and so on. However, that is not to say that the opposite is necessarily the case, namely, it is not to say that every police officer in this situation is to be assumed to be a person who is caused harassment. Very frequently words and behaviour with which police officers will be wearily familiar will have little emotional impact on them save that of boredom. It may well be that, in appropriate circumstances, justices will decide (indeed they might decide in the present case) as a question of fact that the words and behaviour were not likely in all the circumstances to cause harassment, alarm or distress to either of the police officers. That is a question of fact for the justices to be decided in all the circumstances, the time, the place, the nature of the words used, who the police officers are, and so on.
160:
However, in Abdul v DPP, Lord
Justice Gross ruled that to some degree such rules were a matter of fact to be handled by lower courts and not a matter for appeal, stating "If the lower courts themselves approached the matter having duly considered all the relevant principles, the appellate courts will
152:
In Dehal v Crown
Prosecution Service, Mr Justice Moses ruled that in cases involving freedom of expression, prosecution is unlawful unless it is necessary to prevent public disorder: "a criminal prosecution was unlawful as a result of section 3 of the Human Rights Act and Article 10 unless and until
140:
DPP v Harvey (17 Nov 2011) EWHC 3992 (Admin), EWHC B1 (Admin) upheld an appeal quashing a conviction for a section 5 offence. The appellant had been searched by two Police
Officers and swore at them. Neither officer said they were harassed, alarmed or distressed by the words and could not show how
156:
Case law may go further and revolve around the prevention of violence. In considering another section 5 case, Lord
Justice Auld quoted Redmond-Bate v DPP (a case involving breach of the peace), "Free speech includes not only the inoffensive, but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the
103:
1 WLR 88, 3 All ER 449, 88 Cr App R 261 the
Divisional Court confirmed that police officers are not unable to be victims of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 caused by swearing and other abusive/threatening behaviour, but this behaviour must be in excess of what the officer is or should be
111:
I find nothing in the context of the Act of 1986 to persuade me that a police officer may not be a person who is caused harassment, alarm or distress by the various kinds of words and conduct to which section 5(1) applies. I would therefore answer the question in the affirmative, that a police
126:
said "I see no basis for the original written argument that this criminal provision is not available when police officers alone are the likely audience or target.", although the court acknowledged the tide is slowly turning on such incidents:
136:
Holloway v DPP (Admn 21 Oct 2004) Ref: EWHC 2621 (Admin)) also states that a charge relying on the fact that someone "might have, or could have seen" the conduct is insufficient, compared to whether or not anyone actually did.
132:"Finally, although the court considered that the facts of this case came near to the borderline as to whether the ingredients of the offence were made out, it is clear that they concluded"
161:– also on established principles, applicable to appellate courts – be disinclined to interfere." noting that in Dehal v CPS the lower court had not considered Article 10 in any way.
153:
it could be established that such a prosecution was necessary in order to prevent public disorder". This case involved an individual placing a sign critical of religious leaders.
201:
237:
273:
205:
80:
had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action.
200:(which required a warning to be given beforehand). They were repealed by section 174 of, and Part 2 of Schedule 17 to, the
497:
164:
In a similar case, a defendant who displayed a poster saying "Islam out of
Britain" was found guilty and denied appeal.
149:
Clause (c) allows for a defence on the grounds of reasonable behaviour. This interpretation will depend upon case law.
253:
249:
352:
378:
324:
502:
87:
and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling.
461:
233:
31:
444:"Abdul & Ors v Director of Public Prosecutions [2011] EWHC 247 (Admin) (16 February 2011)"
216:
There were four to five thousand prosecutions for harassment, alarm or distress brought each year in
224:
during the 2001–2003 period, with approximately three thousand cases resulting in conviction.
57:
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."
288:
306:
69:
which removed the word "insulting" in subsections "a" and "b" following pressure from citizens.
340:
269:
27:
477:
157:
heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence".
425:
404:
443:
426:"Norwood v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] EWHC 1564 (Admin) (03 July 2003)"
117:
492:
173:
328:
42:
The offence is created by section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Section 5(1) provides:
405:"Dehal v Crown Prosecution Service [2005] EWHC 2154 (Admin) (27 September 2005)"
185:
181:
177:
123:
486:
62:
52:(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening ,
478:
Statistics on criminal proceedings for harassment, alarm or distress, 2001-2003
196:
Sections 5(4) and (5) of the 1986 Act formerly provided a statutory power of
77:
23:
84:
217:
66:
197:
49:(a) uses threatening words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
221:
268:, Fraser Simpson (2006). pp. 253. Oxford University Press.
254:
racially or religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress
204:. Arrest for this offence is now governed by section 24 of the
353:"Holloway v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 21 Oct 2004"
30:, arising from an expression used in sections 4A and 5 of the
379:"Harvey v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 17 Nov 2011"
266:
Blackstones Police Manual: Volume 4: General police duties
34:, which created the offence. The Act was amended in 1994.
141:
any member of the public was affected. Appeal held.
72:This offence has the following statutory defences:
16:
Element of a statutory offence in
England and Wales
46:"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he/she:
109:
8:
236:creates the distinct, aggravated offence of
202:Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
244:Racially or religiously aggravated offence
238:intentional harassment, alarm or distress
228:Intentional, harassment alarm or distress
280:
252:(c.37) creates the distinct offence of
420:
418:
172:The offence created by section 5 is a
206:Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
7:
122:EWHC 3449 (Admin), All ER (D) 101,
208:(as substituted by the 2005 Act).
14:
90:(c) The conduct was reasonable.
1:
20:Harassment, alarm or distress
250:Crime and Disorder Act 1998
83:(b) The defendant was in a
519:
176:. It is punishable with a
168:Mode of trial and sentence
65:passed a redaction of the
325:Crime and Courts Act 2013
145:Limits: Freedom of speech
248:Section 31(1)(c) of the
307:"Public Order Act 1986"
289:"Public Order Act 1986"
311:www.legislation.gov.uk
293:www.legislation.gov.uk
114:
462:Public Order Act 1986
234:Public Order Act 1986
188:(£1,000 as of 2015).
32:Public Order Act 1986
498:English criminal law
107:Glidewell LJ said:
22:is an element of a
232:Section 4A of the
274:978-0-19-928522-8
61:In February 2014
28:England and Wales
510:
465:
458:
452:
451:
440:
434:
433:
422:
413:
412:
401:
395:
394:
392:
390:
375:
369:
368:
366:
364:
349:
343:
337:
331:
321:
315:
314:
303:
297:
296:
285:
518:
517:
513:
512:
511:
509:
508:
507:
483:
482:
474:
469:
468:
459:
455:
442:
441:
437:
424:
423:
416:
403:
402:
398:
388:
386:
385:. 29 April 2019
377:
376:
372:
362:
360:
351:
350:
346:
338:
334:
322:
318:
305:
304:
300:
287:
286:
282:
262:
246:
230:
214:
194:
174:summary offence
170:
147:
128:
97:
95:Police officers
40:
17:
12:
11:
5:
516:
514:
506:
505:
503:Harassment law
500:
495:
485:
484:
481:
480:
473:
472:External links
470:
467:
466:
464:, section 5(6)
453:
448:www.bailii.org
435:
430:www.bailii.org
414:
409:www.bailii.org
396:
370:
344:
339:SI 2013/2981,
332:
316:
298:
279:
278:
277:
276:
261:
258:
245:
242:
229:
226:
213:
210:
193:
190:
186:standard scale
180:not exceeding
169:
166:
146:
143:
119:Southard v DPP
96:
93:
92:
91:
88:
81:
59:
58:
55:
54:
53:
50:
39:
36:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
515:
504:
501:
499:
496:
494:
491:
490:
488:
479:
476:
475:
471:
463:
457:
454:
449:
445:
439:
436:
431:
427:
421:
419:
415:
410:
406:
400:
397:
384:
380:
374:
371:
359:. 13 May 2019
358:
354:
348:
345:
342:
336:
333:
330:
329:section 57(2)
326:
320:
317:
312:
308:
302:
299:
294:
290:
284:
281:
275:
271:
267:
264:
263:
259:
257:
255:
251:
243:
241:
239:
235:
227:
225:
223:
219:
211:
209:
207:
203:
199:
191:
189:
187:
183:
179:
175:
167:
165:
162:
158:
154:
150:
144:
142:
138:
134:
133:
129:
125:
121:
120:
113:
108:
105:
102:
94:
89:
86:
82:
79:
75:
74:
73:
70:
68:
64:
56:
51:
48:
47:
45:
44:
43:
37:
35:
33:
29:
25:
21:
456:
447:
438:
429:
408:
399:
387:. Retrieved
382:
373:
361:. Retrieved
356:
347:
335:
319:
310:
301:
292:
283:
265:
247:
231:
215:
195:
171:
163:
159:
155:
151:
148:
139:
135:
131:
130:
118:
115:
110:
106:
100:
98:
71:
60:
41:
19:
18:
383:swarb.co.uk
357:swarb.co.uk
38:The offence
26:offence in
487:Categories
260:References
212:Statistics
124:Fulford J.
101:DPP v Orum
63:Parliament
104:used to.
78:defendant
24:statutory
85:dwelling
76:(a) The
218:England
184:on the
182:level 3
67:statute
493:Crimes
389:30 May
363:30 May
272:
198:arrest
192:Arrest
341:art 3
222:Wales
460:The
391:2020
365:2020
323:The
270:ISBN
220:and
178:fine
116:In
99:In
489::
446:.
428:.
417:^
407:.
381:.
355:.
327:,
309:.
291:.
256:.
240:.
450:.
432:.
411:.
393:.
367:.
313:.
295:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.