References: [1989] 88 Cr App Rep 261
Coram: Glidewell LJ
Ratio: Glidewell LJ discussed the offence under section 5 where words used toward the police officer were the basis of the charge: ‘Very frequently words and behaviour with which police officers will be wearily familiar will have little emotional impact on them save that of boredom. It may well be that, in appropriate circumstances, justices will decide (indeed they might decide in the present case) as a question offact that the words and behaviour were not likely in all the circumstances to cause harassment, alarm or distress to either of the police officers. That is a question of fact for the justices to be decided in all the circumstances, the time, the place, the nature of the words used, who the police officers are, and so on.’
Statutes: Public Order Act 1986 5(1)(a)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Harvey v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 3992 (Admin), Bailii, [2011] EWHC B1 (Admin))
The appellant had been approached and searched by police officers and swore at them. He now appealed against a conviction under section 5 of the 1986 Act.
Held: The use of the word ‘fuck’ was common in such situations. Neither officer had . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 12 March 2019
Ref: 449712