Hashman and Harrup v The United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Nov 1999

The defendants had been required to enter into a recognisance to be of good behaviour after disrupting a hunt by blowing of a hunting horn. They were found to have unlawfully caused danger to the dogs. Though there had been no breach of the peace, they had acted contrac bonos mores. They complained that the offence was insufficiently precise as to allow them to know what was required.
Held: The case concerned an interference with freedom of expression which was not expressed to be a ‘sanction’, or punishment, for behaviour of a certain type, but rather an order, imposed on the applicants, not to breach the peace or behave contra bonos mores in the future. Conduct contra bonos mores is defined as behaviour which is ‘wrong rather than right in the judgment of the majority of contemporary fellow citizens’ The offence lacked the quality of being ‘prescribed by law’ and infringed article 10.
Wildhaber P
(1999) 30 EHRR 241, 25594/94, [1999] ECHR 133, [2000] Crim LR 185, 8 BHRC 104
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 10 11, Justices of the Peace Act 1361
Human Rights
Citing:
CitedRegina v County Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee ex parte Metropolitan Police Commissioner 1948
A breach of the peace does not constitute a criminal offence. . .
CitedRegina v Howell (Errol) CACD 1981
The court considered the meaning of the legal concept of a breach of the peace.
Held: The essence is to be found in violence or threatened violence. ‘We entertain no doubt that a constable has a power of arrest where there is reasonable . .
CitedPercy v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 13-Dec-1994
A woman protester repeatedly climbed over the perimeter fencing into a military base.
Held: The defendant had a choice between agreeing to be bound over and going to prison. Her refusal to agree to be bound over had an immediate and obvious . .
CitedRex v Sandbach, ex parte Williams KBD 1935
The Court rejected the view that a person could not be bound over to be of good behaviour when there was no reason to apprehend a breach of the peace. As in the case of binding over to keep the peace, there had to be some reason to believe that . .
CitedRegina v Nicol and Selvanayagam QBD 10-Nov-1995
The appellants appealed a bind-over for a finding that each appellant had been guilty of conduct whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned. The appellants, concerned about cruelty to animals, had obstructed an angling competition by . .
CitedHughes v Holley 1988
Lord Justice Glidewell said that behaviour contra bonos mores meant ‘conduct which has the property of being wrong rather than right in the judgment of the majority of contemporary fellow citizens.’ . .
CitedRegina v Ayu CCA 1959
It is not open to the justices to attach specific conditions to a binding-over order. . .
CitedGoodlad v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire 1979
Magistrates may not attach particular conditions to a requirement that a defendant be bound over to be of good behaviour. . .
CitedRegina v Ghosh CACD 5-Apr-1982
The defendant surgeon was said to have made false claims for payment for operations, and was charged under the 1968 Act. He claimed to have been entitled to the sums claimed, and denied that he had been dishonest. The court considered the meaning of . .
CitedRekvenyi v Hungary ECHR 20-May-1999
Hudoc Grand Chamber – No violation of Art. 10; No violation of Art. 11; No violation of Art. 14+10; No violation of Art. 14+11 Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-III
The level of precision required of . .
CitedChorherr v Austria ECHR 25-Aug-1993
The applicant was one of two arrested demonstrating against the Austrian armed forces at a military parade. They had rucksacks on their backs, with slogans on them. The rucksacks were so large that they blocked other spectators’ view of the parade. . .
CitedThe Sunday Times v The United Kingdom (No 2) ECHR 26-Nov-1991
Any prior restraint on freedom of expression calls for the most careful scrutiny. ‘Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society subject to paragraph (2) of Article 10. It is applicable not only to . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v Rimmington; Regina v Goldstein HL 21-Jul-2005
Common Law – Public Nuisance – Extent
The House considered the elements of the common law offence of public nuisance. One defendant faced accusations of having sent racially offensive materials to individuals. The second was accused of sending an envelope including salt to a friend as a . .
CitedLaporte, Regina (on the application of ) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants had been in coaches being driven to take part in a demonstration at an air base. The defendant police officers stopped the coaches en route, and, without allowing any number of the claimants to get off, returned the coaches to London. . .
CitedNorris v United States of America and others HL 12-Mar-2008
The detainee appealed an order for extradition to the USA, saying that the offence (price-fixing) was not one known to English common law. The USA sought his extradition under the provisions of the Sherman Act.
Held: It was not, and it would . .
See AlsoHashman and Harrup v The United Kingdom ECHR 14-Sep-2011
Grand Chamber – Execution of the judgment . .
CitedHowarth v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis QBD 3-Nov-2011
howarth_cmpQBD2011
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision to search him whilst travelling to a public protest in London. A previous demonstration involving this group had resulted in criminal damage, but neither the claimant nor his companions were found to . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 January 2021; Ref: scu.165782