Taylor v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 28 Apr 2006

The defendant appealed conviction for racially aggravated use of threatening abusive or insulting words or behaviour. She said that apart from the police there was nobody else about to give rise to any risk of distress.
Held: It was a quiet residential street late at night. The defendant had been shouting, and it was open to the district judge to find that locals may have heard her and distress caused. In the Holloway case, the judgment of Collins J was preferred. ‘the District Judge arrived at what I regard as a finding that a number of people were on the scene and were near enough to hear the racially abusive language. That seems to me to equate with being able to hear and to fall within the words ‘within the hearing of’ in the subsection. ‘ As to the element of racial aggravation: ‘hostility towards one member of a racial group is sufficient to qualify under paragraph (b) so long as it forms part of the motivation.’

Judges:

Jack J, Keene LJ

Citations:

Times 14-Jun-2006, [2006] EWHC 1202 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Public Order Act 1986, Crime and Disorder Act 1998 31(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHolloway v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 21-Oct-2004
The defendant had been naked, filming children playing. He had not been seen doing so. The court considered whether a conviction for disorderly conduct under section 5 required the presence of a third party. It was an express finding by the court . .
CitedRG and LT v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 28-Jan-2004
The court contrasted allegations under sections 28(1)(a) and 28(1)(b): ‘paragraph (a) form is not concerned so much with the offender’s state of mind but with what he did or said so as to demonstrate racial hostility towards the victim. In contrast, . .

Cited by:

CitedHarvey v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 17-Nov-2011
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242293