Director of Public Prosecutions v Hammond: QBD 13 Jan 2004

A preacher repeatedly displayed posters such as ‘Stop Homosexuality’ and ‘Stop Lesbianism’. He had been convicted of displaying a sign which was threatening abusive or insulting within the sight of a person likely to be caused harrassment alarm on distress. On one occasion a crowd of 30 or more had gathered outside his house.
Held: The conviction stood. The court had to balance the proper need for public order with freedom of speech. The magistrates had asked themselves the correct questions, and reached a decision supported by evidence.


May LJ, Harrison J


Times 28-Jan-2004


Public Order Act 1986 5(1) 5(6)


England and Wales


CitedBrutus v Cozens HL 19-Jul-1972
The House was asked whether the conduct of the defendant at a tennis match at Wimbledon amounted to using ‘insulting words or behaviour’ whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned contrary to section 5. He went onto court 2, blew a . .
CitedThe Sunday Times (No 1) v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Apr-1979
Offence must be ;in accordance with law’
The court considered the meaning of the need for an offence to be ‘in accordance with law.’ The applicants did not argue that the expression prescribed by law required legislation in every case, but contended that legislation was required only where . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.193412