Public Order Flashcards

Question

What is breach of the peace?

Answer 1

breach of the peace is a long standing common law principle which is used to prevent unlawful violence against people or property. It allows a police officer to arrest a person in order to prevent a breach of the peace, when it is reasonable to believe that should certain conduct continue a breach of the peace will occur. Sanction for breach of the peace is that the court can bind over to keep the peace.

Answer 2

R v. Howell - "breach of the peace will arise if an act is done or threatened to be done which either harms the person or is likely to cause such harm or which put a person in fear of such harm (e.g. violence)" This can be seen by the case of Duncan v. Jones (Trade Unionist case) and Moss v. MacLachlan (Miners case)

Answer 3

- D was about to make a public address in a place where a year earlier a disturbance had been incited by her speaking - PO reasonably believed that a breach of the peace would occur if the meeting was held, and order D not to speak - D persisted in trying to hold the meeting and obstructed a PO in doing their duty - If the PO had been lawful in carrying out their duty then D could be held to be liable for obstructing a PO in the execution of their duty - Court held: D willingly obstructed the officer in the execution of their duty as the PO reasonably apprehended a breach of the peace

Answer 4

- four striking miners were travelling in a convoy of cars aiming to picket a working mine - they were stopped by a police cordon on the M1 junction as the police believed a breach of the peace may occur - if they continued they would be in breach of the peace and therefore be arrested (they continued and were arrested) - they were arrested of committing the crime of willfully obstructing a PO - they appealed this and the court held: "the situation has be assessed by the senior PO present... provided they honesty and reasonably believe there is a real risk of a breach of the peace... there actions in this case were reasonable

Answer 5

this was a pre-HRA case, however ruled in the light that the legislation would come into law imminently - RB had been preaching on the steps of a cathedral abut morality, God and the Bible peacefully - the police then arrested her as a crowd started to threaten them - they refused to move through breach of the peace - it was held that they were not obstructing a police officer in his duty because free speech was protected as long as it didn't encourage violence

Answer 6

"free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having" [link this with the harm principle]

Answer 7

Redmond Bate casts doubt on whether Duncan v. Jones and Moss v. MacLachlan were correctly decided. In Redmond Bate the POs decision to arrest was not lawful. it is a shift away from granting such wide power to the police. However it is now subject to the decision in the case of R (Laporte) v. Chief Constable of Gloucestershire

Answer 8

- case involved an anti-Iraq war, the police new some people on three buses were members of the anarchist group, The Wombles, - the police stopped and searched the buses some way before the destination however could not find them so turned the buses around and sent them back to London so no one could protest - this went to JR - House of Lords held this was unlawful interference with a Human Right, the court held the breach of the peace must be imminent and police only have powers to arrest and not to direct people.

Answer 9

It is when the police restrict the movement of protesters to a certain area Austin v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and R (Moos) v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Answer 10

- an anti-globalisation rally in London, the organisers had not sought authorisation for it - fearing disorder the police cordoned off Oxford Circus for 7 hours - a speaker was held in the cordon for 7 hours argued it was in breach of her article 5 right to liberty as she could not collect her child from nursery - House of Lords held a deprivation of liberty is a matter of degree and intensity, and a range of factors should be considered such as: - situation of the individual - context in which it occurs - purpose of the confinement - in this case it was held that the police measures were in good faith then the article 5 right was not contravened, therefore in this case it was held to be reasonable and proper [this case went to ECHR and it was held there was not intervention]

Answer 11

Laporte had restricted the use of breach of the peace powers through restricting police police to merely arrest. Austin however had broadened it allowing detention in a kettle. It should be noted that the House of Lords did stress the exceptional nature of the circumstances in Austin.

Answer 12

- there was a fear of violence at the G20 summit, PO made the decision to kettle 4000-5000 protesters from 12pm to 7:30pm - Court held it was reasonable to conclude that a breach of the peace was imminent in light of the information available to them at the time Lord Neuburger: "a decision to contain will only be made... in extreme and exceptional circumstances... and the circumstances here met this test"

Answer 13

Mengesha v. Commissioner of Police of Metropolis - M had attended a demonstration in Piccadilly and became caught in a kettle - after a lengthy period the kettle was dispersed, they were told to be able to leave the kettle needed to give their name and ID or risk arrest - it was held that this is not lawful for the police to maintain containment for gaining information - article 8 as engaged and it was incumbent on the PO to justify the collection of information

Answer 14

(1) any person who assaults a constable in the execution of their duty or a person assisting a constable in the execution of their duty shall be guilty of this offence (2) any person who resists or willfully obstructs a constable in the execution of his duty or a person assisting a constable shall be guilty of an offence

Answer 15

(1) Fagan v. MPC F drove onto a POs foot and refused to remove it amounted to assault (2) Duncan v. Jones once a PO reasonably believes that a breach of the peace could occur, any action which impeded them in their course of preventing it could amount to breach of the peace

Answer 16

Justices of the Peace Act 1361 gives courts the power to bind over offenders to keep the peace, this can be an alternative to a criminal offence. This involves the court identifying a certain activity which the individual must refrain from.

Answer 17

Percy v. DPP - there must be a threat of violence/ violence for a person to be bound over Steel and others v. UK - "Good Behaviour" was too vauge therefore the courts power was no clear Halesman v. UK - "Be of Good Behaviour" was unclear what to refrain from, therefore the ECtHR held it was in violation from art. 10

Answer 18

"prohibition of uniforms in connection with political objects"

Answer 19

O'Moran v. DPP - IRA funeral, the IRA had a quasi-uniform of black with a berry and sunglasses, it was held to come under s.1 POA 1936

Answer 20

RIOT s. 1 (1) where 12 or more people are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using unlawful violence is guilty of riot (2) it is immaterial whether or not the 12 or more use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously. (3) The common purpose may be inferred from conduct. (4) No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene. (5) Riot may be committed in private as well as in public places. (6) A person guilty of riot is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or a fine or both.

Answer 21

R v. Tyler (riot concerning the poll tax) and R v. Jefferson (a riot after an England football win)

Answer 22

VIOLENT DISORDER "where 3 or more persons present together use if threaten unlawful violence whether simultaneously or not , and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene of the crime to fear for his personal safety each of those using/threatening unlawful violence is guilty of a violent disorder"

Answer 23

3 or more people must be present (R v. Fleming) the case of R v. Hebron demonstrated that being at the scene of a fight where bottles were thrown at the police led to convictions for violent disorder

Answer 24

gang violence

Answer 25

1. the number of people required for the offence (3 vs. 12) 2. the common purpose requirement for riot and not for violent disorder 3. for riot unlawful violence is a requirement whereas for violent disorder the mere threat is required

Answer 26

AFFRAY "a person commits an affray if he used or threatens [other than by words alone] unlawful violence to another and his conduct us such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene of the crime to fear for personal safety"

Answer 27

R v. Thind - D drove his car at a rival gangs car R v. Robertson - a threatening tone of voice will not suffice, action is required R v. Dixon - a man encouraged his dog to attack the police came within s.3 IM&H v. DPP - carrying petrol bombs can amount to an affray

Answer 28

FEAR OR PROVOCATION OF VIOLENCE "a person is guilty of an offence is he: a.) uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour b.) distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visual representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful force will be used against him this offence may be committed in public or private"

Answer 29

Winn v. DPP the two elements of a s.4 offence are: 1.) D must intend or be aware that his words or behaviour are insulting 2.) that they must be directed at another person

Answer 30

Threatening or abusive? Brutus v. Cozens held that they have their ordinary meaning Likelihood? Parkin v. Norman - if the V isn't offended this does not loose the insulting nature of the behaviour Ambrose - held that rudeness is not insulting, it is a higher threshold Towards another? Atkin v. DPP - V has to receive the threat personally Immediate unlawful violence? DPP v. Ramos - racist letters amounted to an immediate threat of violence Valintine v. DPP - letter to a neighbour amount to immediate unlawful violence

Answer 31

WORDS OR CONDUCT CAUSING HARASSMENT, ALARM OR DISTRESS (1) a person is guilty of an offence if he: (a) uses threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing sign or other visible representation which is threatening or abusive within sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby" (3) a defence is that they did not know that person was there

Answer 32

Munim Abdul & Others v. DPP - protesting at a soldiers military parade, calling them baby killers - court held these words fell foul of the POA, calling them potentially defamatory comments Norwood v. DPP - displayed a sign that said Islam out of Britain with a picture of the twin towers, led to a s.5 offence

Answer 33

s.4 need to prove a V, whereas in s.5 they merely must be aimed at one person in particular

Answer 34

s.57 of the Crime & Courts Act 2013 removed the word insulting from a s.5 offence

Answer 35

Harassment, alarm or distress must be actually caused to the person against whom the behaviour is directed. It also requires an intention of causing another harassment, alarm or distress

Answer 36

The courts may infer intention from the facts (Rodgers v. DPP)

Answer 37

AGGRAVATED TRESPASS to go onto land without the consent of the owner with intent of obstructing or disrupting a lawful activity. The police have the power to order you off the land.

Answer 38

Richardson v. DPP - Shop selling products made in palastine wanted to prevent sale of such products, it was criminalised in the shop as it was trespassing, they argued that the shop wasn't carrying out a lawful activity due to war crimes, a spesfic criminal offence was needed rather than an incidental criminal activity Baver v. DPP - it is the element of disrupting the shop that makes it agregvated trespass DPP v. Barnard - there was no evidence for intimidation in a mine therefore just trespass, this is a narrow interpretation Ayliffe, Swain & Percy v. DPP - protesting the Iraq war on a military base, argued Iraq war was an unlawful activity - court rejected this argument

Answer 39

Prosecution must use the test of i) trespassing ii) intending to disrupt iii) did something towards that end - this case held that running after a hunt amount ted to aggravated trespass

Answer 40

``` MASS TRESPASS Police have the power to tell an occupier to leave land when owner has asked him to do so if he has: - damaged the land - used threatening/ insulting behaviour - more than 6 vehicles on the land ```

Answer 41

R (Fuller) v. CC Dorset Police - gypsy's on land, police raided the encampment amounted to an interference with family and private life, therefore s.61 should be construed narrowly

Answer 42

OBSTRUCTING A HIGHWAY 1. Physical obstruction of the highway 2. with intent 3. without lawful excuse

Answer 43

Nagy - reasonable use of the highway depends on the circumstances Hirst - space was a consideration

Answer 44

``` Police Reform and Social Responsible Act 2011 hold that there are special requirements for this including: - no load speakers - no tents - no sleeping within 1km of Parliament ```

Answer 45

there is also Protection From Harassment Act 1997 which may apply in some circumstances

Answer 46

The police have a wide discretion of powers over the human rights of people

Answer 47

by minimising human rights approach to kettling this endangers the doctrine that human rights are a constitutional instrument argues that if British Bill of rights is considered the role the police within that should be considered as well as the meaning of liberty argues it must be reformed

Answer 48

argues that due to the large margin of appreciation the attitude towards protest will be heavily influenced by the judicial approach to it [however this has been unclear due to the fluctuating judicial protection offered to the right to protest]

Answer 49

argues that the B of the P is unnecessary, uncertain scope and can be used disproportionately argues that abolition should be done, and is possible without limiting police powers as statute helps

Answer 50

Public Order Act 1986 s.18, displaying abusive, threatening or insulting words with the intent to stir up racial hatred, or with regard to the circumstances is likely to stir up racial hatred

Answer 51

Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 offences involving stirring up hatred against persons on religious grounds through displaying merely threatening words with intent to stir up hatred. Note the distinction between religious hatred and blasphemy.

Answer 52

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act s.74 | use threatening words or behaviour with intent to stir up hatred based on sexual orientation

Public Order Flashcards

(76 cards)