1 / 9

PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3

PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3. OFFENCES UNDER THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986 RIOT Definition – s.1 POA 1986 Note the requirement for at least 12 of the rioters to have a ‘common purpose’- see R v. Jefferson [1994] 1 All ER 127 Note the concept of a ‘person of reasonable firmness.’. PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3.

nhi
Télécharger la présentation

PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 • OFFENCES UNDER THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986 • RIOT • Definition – s.1 POA 1986 • Note the requirement for at least 12 of the rioters to have a ‘common purpose’- see R v. Jefferson [1994] 1 All ER 127 • Note the concept of a ‘person of reasonable firmness.’

  2. PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 • VIOLENT DISORDER • Definition – s.2 POA 1986 • Note the lack of a requirement of a ‘common purpose’. • Mahroof (1988) 88 Cr App R 317 • R v. McGuigan and Cameron (1991) Crim LR 719

  3. PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 • AFFRAY • Definition – s.3 POA 1986. • Note the requirement that the use or threat of violence must be directed towards a specific person. • Note the test of the effect of the action on the ‘person of reasonable firmness.’ • R v. Sanchez [1996] Crim LR 572

  4. PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 • Affray Cases: • R v. Davison [1992] Crim LR 31. • R v. Robinson [1993] Crim LR 589 • R v Dixon [1993] Crim LR 591 • I and Ors v DPP [2001] UKHL10

  5. PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 • Fear or Provocation of Violence • Definition – s.4 POA. • Note the requirement that the behaviour in question must be directed towards a defined individual. • The threat of violence must be ‘immediate.’ R. v. Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court ex p Siadatan [1991] 1 QB 260. • Note the offence in s.4A

  6. PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 • What is ‘threatening , abusive or insulting?’ • Brutus v. Cozens [1973] AC 854 • Masterton v. Holden [1986] 3 All ER 39. • Note the exception in s.4(2) and its probably unintended effect in Atkin [1989] Crim LR 581

  7. PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 • Offensive Conduct • Definition – s.5 • Note the arrest power in s.5(4), (5) • What is threatening, abusive or insulting or disorderly conduct? • Vigon v. D.P.P. [1998] Crim LR 289

  8. PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 • Percy v. DPP [2001] EWHC 1125 (Admin) • Norwood v. DPP [2003] EWHC 1564 (Admin) • Hammond v. DPP [2004] EWHC 69 (Admin) • Note that the conduct must be in the sight or hearing of somebody likely to be caused, ‘harassment, alarm or distress.’ - Holloway v DPP [2004] EWHC 2621 (Admin)

  9. PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 • Conclusion • Do the various public order laws satisfy the ECHR? • What is ‘proportionate’ in this context?

More Related