A group of youths carried petrol bombs in public, anticipating a confrontation with another group. They did not brandish them or actually threaten anybody. On dispersal by the police the bombs were dropped. On being charged with affray it was held that the carrying of such equipment in public even without overt threats or acts of violence could constitute affray according to the particular circumstances, but that the offence should not be put without evidence that some one or more people actually present were or felt so threatened. Their lordships were entitled to look to the Law Commission report which had led to the Act.
Judges:
Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Clyde Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough, Lord Scott of Foscote
Citations:
Times 09-Mar-2001, Gazette 17-May-2001, [2001] 2 All ER 583, [2001] 2 WLR 765, [2001] UKHL 10, (2001) 165 JPN 506, [2001] 2 Cr App R 14, (2001) 165 JP 437, [2002] 1 AC 285
Links:
House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Swanston v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 3-Dec-1996
There was no necessary requirement for evidence from a victim perceiving the use insulting words or behaviour so as to actually feel threatened. . .
Cited – Regina v Sharp; Regina v Johnson CCA 1957
There had been a fight between the two defendants in a public place in the presence of a large number of spectators. They were jointly indicted on a charge of affray and convicted. They appealed.
Held: The court considered the offence of . .
Cited – Regina v Sanchez CACD 6-Mar-1996
The defendant had been convicted of an affray when she had lunged at her boyfriend with a knife in a car park.
Held: The appeal succeeded. A ‘person of reasonable firmness’ who must be concerned for an affray offence to be committed, must be a . .
Cited – Regina v Dixon CACD 1993
The defendant was convicted of affray where he and his Alsatian type dog were pursued by two police officers and cornered in the driveway of a house and he repeated ‘go on, go on’ to the dog who ran forward and bit the police officers.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina v Taylor HL 1973
The House considered the amount of violence or force required to be used to establish the offence of affray: ‘the extent to which the ‘display of force . . without actual violence’ constitutes the offence of affray even where the element of terror . .
Cited – Regina v Robinson CACD 1993
The defendant appealed against his conviction for affray. With a co-accused he had asked a motorist in an aggressive manner to drive them to a particular destination and threatened to take the car if he did not do so. Under s3(3) a threat on a . .
Cited – Regina v Davison CACD 1992
The defendant’s conviction of affray where he had ‘swiped’ a kitchen knife towards a police officer was upheld. . .
Cited – Regina v Shivpuri HL 15-May-1986
The defendant had been accused of attempting to import controlled drugs, but the substances actually found were not in fact a controlled drug, though he had believed and intended them to be. He appealed saying that he should not be conviced of an . .
Cited – Atkin v Director of Public Prosecutions CACD 1989
‘The phrase ‘uses towards another person’ means, in the context of section 4(1)(a) ‘uses in the presence of and in the direction of another person directly.” . .
Cited – Regina v Smith CACD 1997
The court described the offence of affray: ‘It typically involves a group of people who may well be shouting, struggling, threatening, waving weapons, throwing objects, exchanging and threatening blows and so on.’ . .
Cited – M/S Aswan Engineering Establishment Co v Lupdine Ltd 1987
A proprietary liquid waterproofing compound called Lupguard was stacked in plastic pails in Kuwait in full sunshine. The pails collapsed and the Lupguard was lost.
Held: The manufacturers of the pails were not liable in tort: ‘The distinction . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.159113
