Public Order Offences
Key Public Order Offences (under the UK Public Order Act 1986)
Section 1 – Riot
Involves 12 or more people using or threatening unlawful violence for a common purpose, causing a person of reasonable firmness to fear for their safety.
Section 2 – Violent Disorder
Involves 3 or more persons using or threatening unlawful violence.
Section 3 – Affray
A person uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and his conduct would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for their safety.
Section 4 – Fear or Provocation of Violence
Intentionally causing someone to fear immediate unlawful violence or provoke them to violence.
Section 5 – Harassment, Alarm or Distress
Using threatening or abusive words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress.
Detailed Case Law Analysis
1. R v Howell [1982] QB 416
Topic: Breach of the Peace (common law, still applicable alongside statute)
Facts:
The defendant was arrested outside a nightclub after refusing to move on when police were trying to disperse a potentially violent crowd. He argued there was no breach of the peace.
Held:
The Court of Appeal defined "breach of the peace" as occurring when harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or in their presence, or to their property, or when a person is in fear of being so harmed through assault, affray, or riot.
Legal Principle:
This case established a lasting definition of breach of the peace. Although not under the Public Order Act 1986, it provides the foundation for understanding when police can act preemptively.
2. R v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire ex parte Lewis [1991]
Topic: Preventive arrest to prevent breach of the peace
Facts:
Protesters were planning to demonstrate at an air base. Police, believing this could lead to violence, stopped and detained them preemptively.
Held:
The court held the police were entitled to take preventive action where they reasonably believed a breach of the peace was imminent.
Legal Principle:
Police can lawfully arrest or detain individuals without charge if they believe it will prevent an imminent breach of peace.
3. R v Lester (1997) 61 JPL 423
Topic: Section 4 – Fear or provocation of violence
Facts:
The defendant shouted racist abuse at a group of ethnic minorities, inciting an aggressive reaction. He was charged under Section 4 for provoking violence.
Held:
The court found that his behaviour was intended to provoke violence and caused fear of immediate unlawful violence.
Legal Principle:
Intent and effect are both crucial under Section 4 – if the act incites others or causes fear, it's prosecutable even without actual violence occurring.
4. R v Davison (1992) 96 Cr App R 180
Topic: Affray – Section 3 Public Order Act 1986
Facts:
Davison was part of a group in a pub fight where threats and actual violence were used. He argued he didn't direct his threats at anyone specific.
Held:
The court held that affray can be committed even if the threat is not directed at a particular individual, as long as the conduct would cause a person of reasonable firmness to fear for their safety.
Legal Principle:
Affray is judged by the potential impact of conduct on an objective bystander – it doesn’t require specific victims.
5. DPP v Orum [1989] Crim LR 848
Topic: Section 5 – Harassment, alarm or distress
Facts:
The defendant shouted abuse at police officers in a public place. He was charged under Section 5.
Held:
The court ruled that police officers can be considered victims under Section 5 if the abuse exceeds the usual rough-and-tumble of police work and is genuinely distressing.
Legal Principle:
Even police officers are protected under Section 5 if the words used cross a certain line. The impact on the victim is key.
6. Percy v DPP [2001] EWHC Admin 1125
Topic: Freedom of expression vs public order – Section 5
Facts:
A peace activist displayed a banner with offensive language at a military base. She was charged under Section 5 for causing distress.
Held:
The court emphasized that the right to freedom of expression must be balanced with public order concerns. Conviction upheld as the language was found to be genuinely distressing in that context.
Legal Principle:
Freedom of speech does not provide immunity from public order offences – context and impact matter.
7. Redmond-Bate v DPP [1999] EWHC Admin 733
Topic: Public order vs freedom of speech
Facts:
A preacher and two others were addressing a crowd in a public place. The police asked them to leave as the crowd was becoming hostile. They refused and were arrested.
Held:
The court ruled that merely expressing unpopular views is not a breach of the peace. The speakers were not threatening or abusive – it was the reaction of the crowd that was disorderly.
Legal Principle:
The law protects lawful speech even if others react badly. Breach of the peace must be linked to the conduct of the person being arrested.
Summary of Key Legal Principles:
| Offence | Key Requirement | Case Example | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of the Peace | Actual or imminent harm or fear of harm | R v Howell | Preemptive action is lawful |
| Section 4 | Intentional fear or provocation of violence | R v Lester | Intention and effect are crucial |
| Section 3 (Affray) | Threat of violence causing fear in a bystander | R v Davison | Objective test of fear |
| Section 5 | Words/behaviour causing alarm/distress | DPP v Orum | Police can be victims |
| Public Order vs Speech | Right to protest vs risk of disorder | Redmond-Bate v DPP | Free speech is protected unless conduct is disorderly |
Conclusion
Public order offences strike a delicate balance between maintaining peace and preserving civil liberties such as freedom of expression and assembly. Courts have developed nuanced interpretations through key cases, ensuring that while law enforcement can act to prevent disorder, individuals are not punished merely for expressing unpopular views or engaging in peaceful protest. Understanding the case law helps clarify how these legal boundaries operate in real-world situations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments