1/17
Looks like no tags are added yet.
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced | Call with Kai |
|---|
No analytics yet
Send a link to your students to track their progress
Overview + Lacey/Wells quote
Many categories (e.g. public nuisances, hate crimes, protesting) / N Lacey and C Wells: ‘public disorder can extend to cover almost any behaviour which violates criminal law’
Key laws
Policing Act 2021 + Public Order Act 2023
Models for public order offences
Order maintenance model / rights protection model / democratic space model
Affray
Affray = when someone threatens unlawful violence/causes people to fear their safety / also no victim / test based on a ‘person of reasonable firmnes’
Affray - R v B 2000
R v Brodie 2000 / D was part of a group that followed victim along a footpath for nearly a mile, one of the members killed V / court ruled that despite Brodie not assaulting the victim, role in the group created an ‘aura of menace’
Affray - I v DPP 2002
I v DPP 2002 / group of youths gathered in a public place with petrol bombs, never caused harms / Lords held merely carrying petrol bombs not enough to constitute affray
Affray - R v D 1993
R v Dixon 1993 / words alone can be affray, even indirect threats
Affray - R v D 1992
R v Davison 1992 / knife directed at officer, but bystanders still put in fear = public order
Fear of provocation of violence - key law
Public Order Act 1986 - s4 outlines this
Fear of provocation of violence - B v C 1972
Brutus v Cozens 1972 / natural meaning D’s words to be taken, even if V didn’t understand/hear the threat
Fear of provocation of violence - R v M 1986
R v Masterson 1986 / fear of violence requires a human target
Fear of provocation of violence - not actual violence (Ex p S, DPP v R)
Actual violence doesn’t need to occur, just anticipatory fear / ex p Siadatan 1992 - if violence likely to be soon / DPP v Ramos 2000 expanded this - sufficient if violence could be at any time
Harassment, alarm or distress - B v C 1972
Brutus v Cozens 1972 / B disrupted Wimbledon match to protest apartheid / court ruled insulting behaviour must show contempt for others’ rights / conduct wasn’t threatening = not alarm/distrss
Harassment, alarm or distress - must be a victim - H v DPP 2004
Holloway v DPP 2004 / Justice Collins: ‘some person must have actually seen the abusive or insulting words or behaviour’ / but person doesn’t have to actually hear it
Harassment, alarm or distress - Must be real emotional disturbance - R v DPP 2006
R v DPP 2006 / police arrested 12yo boy’s sister - got upset and made gestures / court ruled boy’s actions shouldn’t have caused genuine emotional distress for police
H v DPP 2023 - free speech and harassment
Hicks v DPP 2023 / Hicks confronted NHS professionals while filming them / Court upheld conviction - exceeded bounds of legitimate free speech, clarified how journalism doesn’t exempt harassment charges
H v DPP 2023 - Justice C quote
Hicks v DPP 2023 / Justice Chamberlain: ‘Hicks’ behaviour had crossed the line from legitimate free speech to behaviour that was threatening and abusive’
S v Cmmr of Police 2025
Sleeper v Cmmr of Police 2025 / S arrested after displaying signs critiquing Islam / court upheld arrest - police entitled to act on reasonable grounds to prevent breach of peace