Riot And Violent Disorder Prosecutions
🔍 LEGAL DEFINITIONS: Riot & Violent Disorder
Under the Public Order Act 1986 (UK):
1. Riot – Section 1
When 12 or more persons are present together using or threatening unlawful violence for a common purpose, and their conduct would cause a person of reasonable firmness to fear for their safety.
Indictable offence.
Max penalty: 10 years imprisonment.
2. Violent Disorder – Section 2
When 3 or more persons use or threaten unlawful violence, and again, their conduct would cause a person of reasonable firmness to fear for their safety.
Can be tried either way.
Max penalty: 5 years imprisonment.
These offences require:
Unlawful violence (actual or threatened),
Group action,
Conduct that would alarm a reasonable bystander.
⚖️ DETAILED CASE LAW EXAMPLES
1. R v. Mahroof (1992)
Facts:
Defendant was part of a group during a protest that turned violent, involving property damage and intimidation.
Issue:
Could the defendant be guilty of riot even if he didn’t personally commit violence?
Ruling:
Yes. Being part of a group acting with a common unlawful purpose, and aiding or encouraging the violence, is sufficient.
Key Takeaway:
Active participation isn’t always required — presence and encouragement in a violent crowd can suffice.
2. R v. Howell (1982)
Facts:
Defendant was involved in a clash between rival football fans.
Issue:
Could “threatening behaviour” that doesn’t result in physical violence qualify?
Ruling:
Yes. Court upheld that threatening unlawful violence can be enough for violent disorder, even without physical harm.
Key Takeaway:
Threats count — actual violence isn’t always necessary.
3. R v. NW (A Juvenile) (2003)
Facts:
15-year-old involved in schoolyard incident where multiple students threatened and intimidated others.
Issue:
Should age and understanding impact liability for violent disorder?
Ruling:
Court found the juvenile guilty but considered age at sentencing.
Key Takeaway:
Minors can be liable for violent disorder; the test is whether they understood their actions.
4. R v. Caird & Others (1970)
Facts:
Protest at an embassy escalated into a violent confrontation with police and damage to property.
Issue:
Could peaceful protesters in the crowd be found guilty of riot?
Ruling:
Court distinguished between passive presence and shared purpose.
Only those clearly acting together with violence were convicted.
Key Takeaway:
Riot requires intentional group violence, not just being nearby.
5. R v. T & Others (2011) – London Riots Case
Facts:
Group looting and setting fire to shops during the 2011 London riots.
Defendants were caught on CCTV.
Issue:
Could defendants be charged with riot and arson?
Ruling:
Yes. Court emphasized coordinated actions, planning, and public threat.
Key Takeaway:
Modern tech (like CCTV) plays a major role.
Planning or coordination strengthens riot charges.
6. R v. McClelland (2001)
Facts:
Defendant used social media to encourage others to gather for a violent protest.
Issue:
Can someone inciting a violent gathering online be liable for riot?
Ruling:
Although not present, the defendant was convicted of incitement to riot.
Key Takeaway:
Online incitement can lead to liability.
You don’t have to be physically present to be responsible.
🧠 Quick Recap: What These Cases Show
| Case | Offence | Core Learning |
|---|---|---|
| Mahroof (1992) | Riot | Encouragement = participation |
| Howell (1982) | Violent disorder | Threats alone are enough |
| NW (2003) | Violent disorder | Juveniles can be liable |
| Caird (1970) | Riot | Passive presence ≠ guilt |
| T & Others (2011) | Riot, Arson | Coordinated attacks = riot |
| McClelland (2001) | Incitement to riot | Online planning = criminal responsibility |
✅ Can You Answer These?
How many people must be involved for a charge of riot vs violent disorder?
Can someone be found guilty of riot if they didn’t personally commit violence?
What role does social media play in riot-related prosecutions today?
RELATED Blog
0 comments