PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 OFFENCES UNDER THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986 RIOT Definition – s.1 POA 1986 Note the requirement for at least 12 of the rioters to have a ‘common purpose’- see R v. Jefferson [1994] 1 All ER 127 Note the concept of a ‘person of reasonable firmness.’

PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 VIOLENT DISORDER Definition – s.2 POA 1986 Note the lack of a requirement of a ‘common purpose’. Mahroof (1988) 88 Cr App R 317 R v. McGuigan and Cameron (1991) Crim LR 719

PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 AFFRAY Definition – s.3 POA 1986. Note the requirement that the use or threat of violence must be directed towards a specific person. Note the test of the effect of the action on the ‘person of reasonable firmness.’ R v. Sanchez [1996] Crim LR 572

PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 Affray Cases: R v. Davison [1992] Crim LR 31. R v. Robinson [1993] Crim LR 589 R v Dixon [1993] Crim LR 591 I and Ors v DPP [2001] UKHL10

PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 Fear or Provocation of Violence Definition – s.4 POA. Note the requirement that the behaviour in question must be directed towards a defined individual. The threat of violence must be ‘immediate.’ R. v. Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court ex p Siadatan [1991] 1 QB 260. Note the offence in s.4A

PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 What is ‘threatening , abusive or insulting?’ Brutus v. Cozens [1973] AC 854 Masterton v. Holden [1986] 3 All ER 39. Note the exception in s.4(2) and its probably unintended effect in Atkin [1989] Crim LR 581

PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 Offensive Conduct Definition – s.5 Note the arrest power in s.5(4), (5) What is threatening, abusive or insulting or disorderly conduct? Vigon v. D.P.P. [1998] Crim LR 289

PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 Percy v. DPP [2001] EWHC 1125 (Admin) Norwood v. DPP [2003] EWHC 1564 (Admin) Hammond v. DPP [2004] EWHC 69 (Admin) Note that the conduct must be in the sight or hearing of somebody likely to be caused, ‘harassment, alarm or distress.’ - Holloway v DPP [2004] EWHC 2621 (Admin)

PUBLIC ORDER LAW 3 Conclusion Do the various public order laws satisfy the ECHR? What is ‘proportionate’ in this context?