tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post1140682614485491492..comments2024-03-27T09:03:22.289+00:00Comments on Law and Lawyers: The John Terry Case ~ Public Order Act 1986 ~ Crime and Disorder Act 1998ObiterJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-20819168673853286352015-03-03T23:36:09.762+00:002015-03-03T23:36:09.762+00:00Could you comment on the difference between sectio...Could you comment on the difference between section 4a and section 5a of the public order act? <br />The key difference seems to the word "intent". However, the CPS charge standards say "Section 4A carries a greater penalty than section 5 and is intended for the more directed and persistent type of behaviour required to prove the elements of intent and causation".<br />This seems unclear. Either "intent" is necessary to prove or "persistence" or possibly both, but the sections of the act do not mention the same things as the CPS charge standards. <br /> superswiftyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03001048374992697920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-44293178108044596652013-08-02T16:48:03.546+01:002013-08-02T16:48:03.546+01:00Those offences are triable only by Magistrates and...Those offences are triable only by Magistrates and not by jury. The MAXIMUM penalties are: <br /><br />section 4 - Six6 months imprisonment or a fine up to £5000 or both <br /><br />section 5 - it is a maximum fine of £1000.<br /><br />See the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/contents" rel="nofollow">Public Order Act 1986</a><br /><br />As I said before this blog does NOT offer legal advice.ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-63153570914713598582013-08-02T08:53:38.381+01:002013-08-02T08:53:38.381+01:00What is the possible outcome of jury trial for sec...What is the possible outcome of jury trial for section 4 & 5 public order offence act 1986.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-14833425351363450952013-08-01T17:12:17.762+01:002013-08-01T17:12:17.762+01:00Regrettably, I cannot offer legal advice on this b...Regrettably, I cannot offer legal advice on this blog. The context in which words are spoken is often a crucial element.ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-43126643030569128602013-08-01T08:54:26.272+01:002013-08-01T08:54:26.272+01:00My son have been falsely accused of saying Baki to...My son have been falsely accused of saying Baki to police officer that he is totally deny now the case in crown court.<br /><br />I want to know is this public interest. My son is first year student.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-6860528914075038372012-07-19T10:27:32.260+01:002012-07-19T10:27:32.260+01:00There was considerable controversy surrounding thi...There was considerable controversy surrounding this section, even before John Terry's case. Probably the most unlikely of allies have joined together to campaign for its reform. You can see their website here:<br /><br />http://reformsection5.org.uk/<br /><br />I'm not a member, in case you're wondering, but I do support their aims.Jonathan James | Associate Solicitorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08852677759958719625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-20378048169931331432012-07-16T20:41:25.487+01:002012-07-16T20:41:25.487+01:00I've just noticed from your post above that th...I've just noticed from your post above that this offence (section 5) doesn't even need to be *intended*. So this is criminalising *unintentional* harassment, alarm and distress.<br /><br />I know it says that you have to be *aware* that particular words might be alarming, distressing etc., but even so, it is possible to be aware of that, yet not intend them to be so at the time (eg. in the heat of the moment).<br /><br />As far as I can find out, the original Public Order Act (1936) only criminalised intentional acts. Section 5 was a new offence in 1986. <br /><br />It must have been used sparingly, because I can't remember these sort of high profile speech offences in the past. I would guess that they only began to appear in courts when New Labour increased penalties and added racial/religious aggravation.<br /><br />It does seem like a bad law and one that has become more toxic with each amendment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-37957924070387261952012-07-16T18:20:53.334+01:002012-07-16T18:20:53.334+01:00Personally I don't think prosecuting this sort...Personally I don't think prosecuting this sort of thing is in the public interest at all. <br /><br />I've heard that it has cost around half a million pounds of public money to decide if one particular offensive word was spoken. Considering there were so many other offensive words spoken by both men, I don't think the use of the word "black" is really so important in the scheme of things.<br /><br />Section 5 is under review at the moment. I hope the amendments are made, and then hopefully we won't see such playground stuff blocking up the courts in future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-1347788493712262522012-07-14T13:00:42.129+01:002012-07-14T13:00:42.129+01:00My colleagues and I are increasingly disquieted by...My colleagues and I are increasingly disquieted by the apparent practice of a single District Judge sitting in what could be described as "high profile" cases. Are we fit to try only the common man on the Clapham omnibus?The Justice of the Peacehttp://thejusticeofthepeace.blog.co.uknoreply@blogger.com