PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3

1. PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 • OFFENCES UNDER THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986 • RIOT • Definition – s.1 POA 1986 • Note the requirement for at least 12 of the rioters to have a ‘common purpose’- see R v. Jefferson [1994] 1 All ER 127 • Note the concept of a ‘person of reasonable firmness.’

2. PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 • VIOLENT DISORDER • Definition – s.2 POA 1986 • Note the lack of a requirement of a ‘common purpose’. • Mahroof (1988) 88 Cr App R 317 • R v. McGuigan and Cameron (1991) Crim LR 719

3. PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 • AFFRAY • Definition – s.3 POA 1986. • Note the requirement that the use or threat of violence must be directed towards a specific person. • Note the test of the effect of the action on the ‘person of reasonable firmness.’ • R v. Sanchez [1996] Crim LR 572

4. PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 • Affray Cases: • R v. Davison [1992] Crim LR 31. • R v. Robinson [1993] Crim LR 589 • R v Dixon [1993] Crim LR 591 • I and Ors v DPP [2001] UKHL10

5. PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 • Fear or Provocation of Violence • Definition – s.4 POA. • Note the requirement that the behaviour in question must be directed towards a defined individual. • The threat of violence must be ‘immediate.’ R. v. Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court ex p Siadatan [1991] 1 QB 260. • Note the offence in s.4A

6. PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 • What is ‘threatening , abusive or insulting?’ • Brutus v. Cozens [1973] AC 854 • Masterton v. Holden [1986] 3 All ER 39. • Note the exception in s.4(2) and its probably unintended effect in Atkin [1989] Crim LR 581

7. PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 • Offensive Conduct • Definition – s.5 • Note the arrest power in s.5(4), (5) • What is threatening, abusive or insulting or disorderly conduct? • Vigon v. D.P.P. [1998] Crim LR 289

8. PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 • Percy v. DPP [2001] EWHC 1125 (Admin) • Norwood v. DPP [2003] EWHC 1564 (Admin) • Hammond v. DPP [2004] EWHC 69 (Admin) • Note that the conduct must be in the sight or hearing of somebody likely to be caused, ‘harassment, alarm or distress.’ - Holloway v DPP [2004] EWHC 2621 (Admin)

9. PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 • Conclusion • Do the various public order laws satisfy the ECHR? • What is ‘proportionate’ in this context?