- Information
- AI Chat
Public Order Offences
Criminal Law
University of Lincoln
Recommended for you
Related Studylists
con and adPreview text
CRIMINAL LAW LECTURE 16: PUBLIC ORDER OFFENCES The basis of the law “it is designed for the protection of the bystander. It is a public order offence. There are other offences for the protection of persons at whom the violence was aimed” Professor JCS Smith cited in Leeson v DPP (2010) The concept of the ‘hypothetical bystander’ (applies Ss 1 – 3 Public Order Act 1986) A) Riot S. 1 POA 1986 At least 12 persons present Acting for a ‘common purpose’ use or threaten unlawful violence ‘hypothetical bystander’ test Can be committed in private or public place A) Riot ‘Unlawful violence’ – includes property/missile throwing see s. 8 POA 1986 Mens rea – see s. 6 (1) POA 1986 = intention to use violence/awareness conduct may be violent Gough v DPP [2013] EWHC 3267 NB – consent Of DPP required for prosecution parliament/briefing-papers/SN06099 B) Violent Disorder S. 2 POA 1986 Same elements as for riot except: At least 3 persons required No need for a common purpose R v NW [2010] 1 WLR 1426 C) Affray S. 3 POA 1986 ‘Hypothetical bystander’ test “and his conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety” NB – can be just 1 person Violence towards property not enough Purely verbal threats not enough Can be in public/private place C) Affray What is conduct? S. 3 (3) ‘threat cannot be made by words alone’ R v Dixon [1993] Crim LR 579 ‘Go on, go on!’ Who must it be directed at? I v DPP [2002] 1 AC 285 C) Affray – The Person of Reasonable Firmness Hypothetical person of reasonable firmness present at the scene They need not actually be present Reasonable firmness? C) Affray – The Person of Reasonable Firmness The ‘Davison Test’ R v Davison [1991] Crim LR 31, CA Leeson v DPP [2010] EWHC 994 1) “…a real possibility of a person of reasonable firmness being present at the scene.”? Christopher Newman, Journal of Criminal Law (2010) 74 (5) 390 C) Affray – The Person of Reasonable Firmness 2) “whether the person would have been caused to fear for his or her personal safety”? (ibid. Newman) R v Sanchez [1996] R v Plavecz [2002] Leeson v DPP [2010] ‘It is this hypothetical, reasonable bystander who must be put in fear for his personal safety, not the victim himself.’ Simon Brown LJ R v Sanchez [1996] C) Affray – A Summary Professor Sir John Smith’s analysis: Affray envisages 3 persons A) the person who uses/threatens unlawful violence towards another; B) the victim of the above; and C) the hypothetical person of reasonable firmness/notional bystander D) Summary Offences: S, 4A and 5 POA 1986 Common elements Threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour (S and S) Threatening and abusive words or behaviour (new s) Disorderly behaviour (S and s) Case List R v DPP [2006] EWHC 1375 (Admin.) Southard v DPP [2006] EWHC 3349 (Admin.) Harvey v DPP [2012] Crim. L. 553 Abdul and Others v DPP [2011] EWHC 247
Public Order Offences
Module: Criminal Law
University: University of Lincoln
- More from:Criminal LawUniversity of Lincoln326 Documents
