The defendant had used public telephones to cause nuisance, annoyance, harassment, alarm and distress. He had made hundreds of obscene telephone calls to at least 13 women, and was convicted of causing a public nuisance. He argued that no call caused distress to more than one person, and that it was wrong to aggregate them.
Held: Following the PYA case, nuisances against a sufficiently large number of individuals could amount to a public nuisance. Tucker J: ‘In his submissions to us on behalf of the appellant, Mr Haworth made two points. First, that each of these telephone calls was a single isolated act to an individual person, which may have represented a private nuisance, but it is wrong to lump them all together and to regard the cumulative effect as an offence of public nuisance. Secondly, that, in any event, the scale and width of the conduct complained of was insufficient to constitute a public nuisance.
In our judgment it is permissible and necessary to look at the cumulative effect of these calls, made to numerous ladies on numerous occasions in the case of each lady, and to have regard to the cumulative effect of the calls in determining whether the appellant’s conduct constituted a public nuisance. In our opinion it was conduct which materially affected the reasonable comfort and convenience of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects: see per Romer LJ in Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd . . . It was a nuisance which was so widespread in its range, or so indiscriminate in its effect, that it would not be reasonable to expect one person to take proceedings on her own responsibility, but that they should be taken on the responsibility of the community at large: see Denning LJ … It was proved by the Crown that the public, meaning a considerable number of persons or a section of the public, was affected, as distinct from individual persons.
The second point involves a question of fact, which was properly left to the jury. Here was an indiscriminate selection of members of the public with whom the appellant had come into contact. It was not a selection of a few individuals. It was a case in which ladies generally who lived in the South Cumbria area, and whose telephone numbers had become known to this appellant, were at risk from him of being harassed and caused annoyance, alarm and distress. Whether there was a sufficient number of complainants of calls to amount to a public nuisance was a question for the jury to decide following proper directions such as were given in this case.’
Judges:
Tucker J
Citations:
Gazette 12-Jun-1996, Times 22-May-1996, [1996] EWCA Crim 428, [1996] 2 Cr App R 434, [1997] 1 WLR 367
Links:
Statutes:
Telecommunications Act 1984 43
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Madden CACD 1975
The court considered an appeal against a conviction for causing a public nuisance by the making of bomb hoax telephone call to a steel works. The message was received by a telephonist, who informed the engineer and also the police. The police . .
Cited – Regina v Norbury 1-Mar-1977
(Norwich Crown Court) Between July 1972 and November 1976, 494 women resident in Norfolk reported to the police a total of 605 obscene telephone calls from the defendant. The offence would normally be a summary offence with a maximum of . .
Cited – Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd CA 1957
In a relator action, an injunction was sought to prevent the respondent from emitting quantities of dust from their quarry. The court had to decide what were the constituents of the offence of a public nuisance, and how this differed from a private . .
Cited – Regina v Millward CACD 1986
Over nearly two years the appellant made thousands of telephone calls to a woman employed at a police station. On one day a total of 636 calls were made. He pleaded guilty to two counts of public nuisance. The whole operation of the police station . .
Cited by:
Cited – Goldstein, Rimmington v Regina CACD 28-Nov-2003
Two defendants appealed in respect of alleged offences under common law of causing a public nuisance. One had sent race hatred material, and the other bomb hoaxes, through the post. Both claimed that the offence was so ill defined as to be an . .
Doubted – Regina 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.148092