The court had to construe the meaning of ‘likely’ in the section reading: ‘Any person who in any public place . . uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour . . with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence.’ Counsel submitted that ‘likely’ meant ‘probably’.
Held: ‘Our task is to construe the words of section 5 in the light of the Act as a whole, including its long title, to which reference can properly be made if the words of the section are ambiguous.’ and ‘It is to be noted that the words of the statute are: ‘whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned’ and not ‘whereby a breach of the peace is liable to be occasioned’. This is a penal measure and the courts must take care to see that the former expression is not treated as if it were the latter.’
[1983] QB 92, [1982] 3 WLR 523, [1982] 2 All ER 583
Public Order Act 1936 5
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Wallis v Bristol Water Plc Admn 10-Dec-2009
The farmer appealed against a conviction uder the 1999 Regulations saying that the fitting to his water supply pipework in a dairy udder wash were not likely to allow backwash so as to risk contamination of the respondent’s water supply. He said . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 August 2021; Ref: scu.518784
