SECT V PUBLIC ORDER ACT & CATCH 22

 06. Apr. 2010. – 17:24:19

On March 6th I commented on ramifications under Sect V of the Public Order Act causing harassment, alarm or distress which was commented upon with his usual wisdom by ObiterJ http://www.obiterj.blogspot.com/

I had cause recently to remind myself of another such case a few years ago. For those unacquainted with court matters this charge is very very common and could be used to charge for using abusive language to standing on a zebra crossing and refusing to move. Essentially a young couple was arguing, he drunk, she very drunk. She falls, police approach and walk her away telling parties to quieten down. She falls again and he rushes to help and protect her. Police tell him to move and say he hit out at officer. He says put arms up to protect himself. Upshot he is arrested and charged. He pleads not guilty and on trial. Now the interesting bit……..these ostensibly “minor” cases often depend on quite deep legal thinking. As he was unrepresented our learned clerk advised him of the defence of “reasonableness” when his actions to protect girlfriend could be “reasonable” but that defence could be put only if he admitted behaviour as described by prosecution. As I said to my colleagues that is a classic Catch 22……He is denying behaviour but that defence which could stand in law required him to admit said behaviour……We discussed for some time and as it was getting late called for the Deputy Justices` Clerk. His advice was that the defendant had had to be aware that his behaviour would have caused alarm or distress to be guilty and if we considered he was unaware then he was not guilty. 

A few minutes later he was relieved to walk away from court retaining his good character. An additional point which did not enter the mix of the above case is that generally being drunk is an aggravating factor in such a matter as it is in other charges but if he were so drunk to be unaware…………