Article 10: Free expression (UK) Flashcards
(10 cards)
What does POA 1986 s5 say?
It is an offence to:
- Use threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
- Display any sign etc. which is threatening or abusive,
Within the sight or hearing of a person liable to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby
And under s6(4), a person is not guilty unless the intend to be threatening or abusive or are aware that their conduct might be
When does POA 1986 s5 not apply / there is a defence?
- It does not apply if both the speaker and hearer are inside a dwelling
- It is a defence if the defendant had no reason to believe there was anyone within sight / hearing who would be caused alarm, harassment or distress
- It is a defence that the defendant’s conduct was reasonable
What are the elements of a s5 POA 1986 offence, classified by whether they are a fact or a value needs to be shown? (Based on the summary in DPP v Norwood)
Value: Was the D’s words/behaviour/representation threatening or abusive?
Fact: Did the D intend that they would be, or were they aware that they could be?
Mixed fact/value: Was this within the sight or hearing of someone likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress?
What does POA 1986 s4 say?
It is an offence to:
- Use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour (incl. distributing writing/a sign),
- With the intention to cause that person to fear immediate unlawful violence, or to provoke the use of violence by them, or
- With the likely effect that that person will fear immediate unlawful violence, or be provoked into using such violence
In Hammond v DPP (2004), what was on the signs that the preacher held?
“Jesus is Lord”
and
“Stop immorality. Stop homosexuality. Stop lesbianism”
In Hammond v DPP (2004), what offence was the defendant charged with?
POA 1986 s5: causing alarm, harassment or distress
In Hammond v DPP (2004), why did the judges uphold Hammond’s conviction?
At the time, s5 included a person displaying a sign which was “threatening, abusive or insulting” within the sight of someone who was likely to be caused alarm, harassment or distress.
The High Court found that Magistrates were able to conclude that the word “insulting” applied to his sign.
This was “not without hesitation”, as the sign was short and not in intemperate language, but it did speak directly to the homosexual and lesbian community and implied they were immoral. The High Court had to find the Magistrates’ decision to reach the Wednesbury unreasonableness threshold, which it didn’t.
Re Hammond v DPP (2004), why would Mr Hammond not be convicted now?
The Crime and Courts Act 2013 removes the word “insulting” from s5 POA 1986: now speech or signs must be “threatening” or “abusive” (and within the sight or hearing of someone likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress)
DPP v Norwood (2002)
Norwood displayed a sign saying “Islam Out of Britain” and “Protect the British People”, with pictures of the Twin Towers and of a crescent and star surrounded by a prohibition sign
His conviction under s5 POA was upheld
What fine was given out in DPP v Norwood?
£300
