Public order offences - Routledge

1 This chapter will explore Public order offences . These crimes, including riot and violent disorder, often occur during Public protests or street brawls. They are a danger to the Public and these recently reformed of-fences are designed to maintain Public order . The law in this area was reformed by the Public order Act 1986. Public order offences used to be based mainly in common orderoffencesRiot: PublicOrder Act 1984 Violent Public OrderAct 1984 Affray: PublicOrder Act 1984 Fear orprovocation ofviolence: PublicOrder Act 1984 Intentionalharassment, alarm ordistress: PublicOrder Act 1984 Harassment, alarm or Public OrderAct 1984 Other relevant offences include wearing a uniform for a political purpose under the Public order Act 1936, and aggravated trespass under of the Criminal Justice and Public order Act 1994. The three main offences examined below can be distinguished as follows:Section 1: RiotSection 2: Violent disorderSection 3: Affray12+ people3+ people1+ people The courts have stated that the criminal law should only be invoked when the conduct amounts to such a threat to Public order that a civil action is not enough Dehal v DPP (2005).

2 RiotRiot: uprising, disturbance, unrest, demonstration, rebellion, group, nitionPublic order offencesPUBLIC order OFFENCES2 Riot is an offence under (1) of the Public order Act offence of riot is provided below. Highlight the actus reus and mens rea elements of this offence and make lists of the actus reus of riot and mens rea of 1(1): Where twelve or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable fi rmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using unlawful violence for the common purpose is guilty of Actus reus of riot There must be at least 12 people present for this offence to apply. The members do not have to agree to assemble in advance. They also do not have to agree on the common purpose in advance (3).

3 It can be committed in private too (5).WorkpointBelow is an example of a riot. Provide your own example of a riot. Actus reus of riot:There is a human rights protest going on in Birmingham. Three pubs call last orders and many drinkers spill out into the street and join the demonstration, which becomes rowdy and violence is threatened. A person of reasonable fi rmness must fear for his personal safety. The violence is only ever lawful if it is used in self-defence. Violent conduct can be aimed towards property as well as people high school students are unhappy with the teaching at their school. In a chemistry lesson, their teacher does not turn up yet again, and the class spill out into the yard and spray graffi ti stating no teach-ers onto the wall of the school. Has there been a riot? Give reasons for your VIOLENT DISORDER3 Mens rea of riot The defendant must intend to use violence or is aware that his con-duct may be violent (1).

4 Awareness is similar to Cunningham recklessness (a subjective test) in that the defendant must be aware of his own behaviour. The consumption of alcohol does not provide a defence to riot (5). Intoxication includes alcohol or drugs or other means (6). Section 6(5): A person whose awareness is impaired by intoxication shall be taken to be aware of that which he would be aware if not intoxicated, unless his intoxication was not self-induced or caused solely by medical treatment. Riot is therefore a basic intent offence even though it does not ex-pressly mention recklessness .Defendantcharged with riotIndictment to CrownCourt onlyMaximum penalty is10 years imprisonmentCheckpoint - riotItem on checklist:Done!I can list four offences from the Public order Act 1986I can defi ne the offence of riot under (1) of the 1986 ActI can list the actus reus elements of riotI can defi ne the mens rea of riot and explain the term awareness I can explain the implications of (5) on a defendant charged with Violent DisorderViolent disorder: three or more persons, present together, using or threatening nitionPUBLIC order OFFENCES4 Violent disorder is not considered as serious as riot.

5 It is an offence under (1) of the 1986 offence of violent disorder is provided below. Make a list of the actus reus and a list of the mens rea elements of this offence:Section 2(1): Where three or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable fi rmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using or threatening unlawful violence is guilty of violent disorder.(2) It is immaterial whether or not the three or more use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously.(3) No person of reasonable fi rmness need actually be, or likely to be, present at the scene.(4) Violent disorder may be committed in private as well as Public places. Only three people need to be present for this offence to apply. The person of reasonable fi rmness does not have to be present at the time (he is simply hypothetical).

6 There is no need for a common purpose under (1). Violent disorder may be committed in private. The violence can be directed towards a person or is an example of violent disorder. Provide your own example of a violent disorder. Actus reus of violent disorder:Five youths begin beating on the window of an old people s home. The glass begins to wobble and cracks begin to appear. The youths are shouting aggressively at the VIOLENT DISORDER5 The defendant must intend to use or threaten violence or is aware that his conduct may be violent or threaten violence (2).WorkpointCopy and complete the diagram and distinguish the mens rea of riot to that of violent disorder. What are the main differences? Mens reaMens rea of violent disorder:Mens rea of riot:Distinguish them here: As seen with riot, intoxication is no defence, making violent disorder a basic intent crime (5).

7 WorkpointAbdul was deeply offended by religious comments made on the regional news. The television building was next to his university, so the next day he stood outside the television building and shouted to the executives to come down and get sorted out . Abdul texted his two friends Alia and Mohammed and all three of them shouted up at the television building for over an hour. Do all three individuals have both the actus reus and mens rea for violent disorder? Apply the ele-ments to each person individually and give reasons for your answer. Defendant charged withviolent disorderTriable eitherwayMaximum penalty is 5years imprisonmentPUBLIC order OFFENCES6 Checkpoint - violent disorderItem on checklist: Done!I can defi ne the offence of riot under (1) of the 1986 ActI can list the actus reus elements of violent disorderI can defi ne the mens rea of violent disorder and distinguish it from the mens rea of riotI can explain why violent disorder is deemed to be the less serious AffrayAffray: scuffl e, fi ght, brawl, disturbance, commotion, nition Affray is considered less serious than violent disorder.

8 It is an offence under (1) of the 1986 offence of affray is provided below. Make a list of the actus reus and mens rea elements of this 3(1): A person is guilty of affray if he uses or threatens unlaw-ful violence towards another and his conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable fi rmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety.(2) If two or more persons use or threaten unlawful violence, it is the conduct of them taken together that must be considered.(3) A threat cannot be made by the use of words alone.(4) No person of reasonable fi rmness need actually be, or likely to be, present at the scene.(5) Affray may be committed in private as well as Public AFFRAY7 There must be some conduct under (1) aggressive words are not enough. Encouraging a dog to attack police is aggressive conduct Dixon (1993). The hypothetical person of reasonable fi rmness does not have to be present at the scene Davison (1992).

9 However, in contrast to riot and violent disorder, because the conduct must be aimed at a person under (1), someone must be present I, M and H v DPP (2001).Case:Davison (1992)Facts: the defendant waved an eight-inch knife at a police offi cer saying I ll have you . His conviction for affray was : it was not a question of whether the police offi cer feared for his personal safety, it was whether a person of reasonable fi rmness present at the scene would have feared for his safety (had he been there).Case:I, M and H v DPP (2001)Facts: all three defendants were members of a gang. They had petrol bombs to use against another gang. The police arrived and they fl ed, throwing away their bombs. Only the police were : the conviction for affray was quashed. It can only be committed where the threat was directed towards another person present at the scene. As for violent disorder, the defendant must intend to use or threaten violence or is aware that his conduct may be violent or threaten vio-lence (2).

10 As seen with riot and violent disorder, intoxication is no defence, making affray a basic intent crime (5). Public order OFFENCES8 RiotViolent DisorderAffrayPublic order Act 1986 Section 1(1)Section 2(1)Section 3(1)Number of defendants12+3+1+Common purpose?Ye sN oN oPublic and private?Yes (5)Yes (4)Yes (5)Conduct towards propertyYes (a)Yes (a)NoMens (1) (2) (2)Maximum penalty10 years5 years3 yearsDefendant charged withaffrayTriable eitherwayMaximum penalty is 3years imprisonmentWorkpointMichael and James were drug dealers. A deal had gone badly wrong and an innocent civilian was shot. The police were on their way and a crowd had gathered. Michael and James had an argument in the street. Twenty minutes later, Michael was arrested for in detail what Michael must do in terms of physical actions, and must in terms of his mental element, in order to be charged with - affrayItem on checklist:Done!