Public Order Offences

Question 1

Affray (section 3)

Answer 1

Leeson v DPP: D calmly said to V she was going to kill him but made no move to do so, V easily disarmed her; V was never put in fear of his own safety and a hypothetical bystander to the scene would not have feared for their own safety- OATP charge, not PO offence
R v Dixon: using words to command a dog to attack held equivalent to using a weapon, could constitute affray

Question 2

Fear of Provocation of Violence (section 4)

Answer 2

Masterson v Holden: two gay men kissing was held to be ‘insulting’ to those present; no need for hypothetical bystander here, words cannot be “insulting” unless there is a human target at which they strike
Lewis v DPP: anti-abortion protesters held placards outside a clinic, one which showed an aborted 21-week foetus lying in blood; Court rejected the argument that “the photograph on the placard was an accurate representation of the result of an abortion, and that what is truthful cannot be abusive or insulting”

Question 3

Case law

Answer 3

Abdul v DPP: Art 10 ECHR confers an unqualified right to freedom of expression, but if the line between freedom of expression and threat to the public order is crossed, freedom of speech would not be impaired by ‘ruling out’ threatening, abusive, or insulting speech
Percy v DPP: peaceful protest will fall under section 5 “where conduct goes beyond legitimate protest and moves into the realms of threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour”
DPP v Ziegler: “deliberate obstructive conduct which has a more than de minimis impact on others, still requires careful evaluation in determining proportionality”
Horder: “prosecution, whether or not ending in conviction, may give more publicity to the actions of those prosecuted than the reporting on the actions themselves and, in some cases, may make ‘martyrs’ of those prosecuted, partly defeating the point of prosecution in the first place.”