Spitting in public. Where does the law stand on this?

Finnbar01

It's one of those things that really grates my nerves.. spitting in public. It's a vile and disgusting habit. Keeping in mind that saliva can contain many nasty little infectious bugs, is there any piece of legislation out there that could fine people for this? I thought laws were brought in decades back to put a stop to this, as saliva can carry TB.

I see it as more contemptible than those who toss their litter on the ground.

slimjimmc

Could it be classed as litter I wonder?

http://acts2.oireachtas.ie/zza12y1997.2.html#zza12y1997s2

"litter" means a substance or object, whether or not intended as waste (other than waste within the meaning of the Waste Management Act, 1996 , which is properly consigned for disposal) that, when deposited in a place other than a litter receptacle or other place lawfully designated for the deposit, is or is likely to become unsightly, deleterious, nauseous or unsanitary, whether by itself or with any other such substance or object, and regardless of its size or volume or the extent of the deposit;

coylemj

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Keeping in mind that saliva can contain many nasty little infectious bugs

If someone is infected with a disease they are far more likely to spread the disease by simply breathing in a public place. Viruses like the common cold and flu are picked up by healthy people inhaling airborne droplets of infected water vapour exhaled by infected people.

I wouldn't worry too much about the health risk of spitting though I agree it's a disgusting habit.

MagicSean

It's technically litter but I've never heard of a prosecution for it. I've done someone under section 5 of the public order act for spitting at a shop window before.

Delancey

I've heard stories from my mother who was a TB nurse in the 1950's that people got the book thrown at them for spitting on the ground in those days when brought to court , sorry but I have no idea what the legislation is/was.
OP - never go to China , disgusting place and the people gob on the floor like it was a national sport :eek:

Dr. Bad Touch

Sweden is another place where I find people gob openly in public

acme4242

In Ireland its not a legally punishable offence, unless you spit at someone, e.g. Garda

for the other two places I have lived

Delancey wrote: »

OP - never go to China , disgusting place and the people gob on the floor like it was a national sport :eek:

yes, its even worse than that, they make the big hack sound, even they have feck all to gob. communism treats people like farm animals, so the Chinese behave as animals,
spitting in public became a fine-able offence during SARS, but its back in full fashion now, don't walk near a bus with open windows

Dr. Bad Touch wrote: »

Sweden is another place where I find people gob openly in public

yes, its the snus, tobacco stuck under the lip, causes a lot of saliva, but no hack sounds. nowhere near as disgusting as China.

source

If it was directed at you directly, I suppose it could be seen as S6 CJ (Public Order) Act.....Threatening, Abusive, Insulting words or behaviour.

littlemac1980

source wrote: »

If it was directed at you directly, I suppose it could be seen as S6 CJ (Public Order) Act.....Threatening, Abusive, Insulting words or behaviour.

If it was directed at you, it would also be a Section 2 assault.

source

littlemac1980 wrote: »

If it was directed at you, it would also be a Section 2 assault.

If it hit you it would be Section 2 assault, but if it was directed at you but didn't land on you it would be Section 6 Public order.

Edit: It may fall under Section 2(1)(b) but that would be stretching the definition there.

2(1)(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact, without the consent of the other.

seamus

What statute is public urination/defecation punishable under? Does the wording of this imply that spitting is covered by it?

littlemac1980

source wrote: »

If it hit you it would be Section 2 assault, but if it was directed at you but didn't land on you it would be Section 6 Public order.

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

Section 2 Doesn't require contact, though it can, a reasonable apprehension of immediate force is as much a Section 2 offence as a punch in the kisser.

It isn't stretching the definition at all, the NFOATP act replaced the common law assault and battery offences.

Subsection (a) replaced the Common Law Battery, which involved the use of actual force.

Subsection (b) replaced the Common Law Assault, for which the offence was causing someone to be put in reasonable fear of being subjected to force or impact immediately.

There is no need for the actual use of force, and that interpretation isn't in any way stretched. On the contrary, it's clearly set out in the Statute and in Case-Law.

source

littlemac1980 wrote: »

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

Section 2 Doesn't require contact, though it can, a reasonable apprehension of immediate force is as much a Section 2 offence as a punch in the kisser.

As I said above, It may fall under 2(1)(b) but that would be stretching the definition.

causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact, without the consent of the other.

Spitting on the ground near someone will not give them reasonable grounds to believe that they are immediately likely to be subjected to a force or impact.

It would be very hard to prove that it is assault, if someone spits on the ground beside you, whereas it would be much easier to prove that it was found to be threatening or insulting behaviour, under the public order act and a case would be more likely to succeed under those conditions than trying to fit spitting (which does not make contact with the body) into an assault charge.

littlemac1980

source wrote: »

If it was directed at you directly, I suppose it could be seen as S6 CJ (Public Order) Act.....Threatening, Abusive, Insulting words or behaviour.

The above mentioned Act, and offence was clearly directed at your example of spitting directly at a person, and not the original example of spitting on the ground, which as you correctly point out would be very very unlikely to amount to an assault under Section 2.

source

littlemac1980 wrote: »

The above mentioned Act, and offence was clearly directed at your example of spitting directly at a person, and not the original example of spitting on the ground, which as you correctly point out would be very very unlikely to amount to an assault under Section 2.

I did not mean if it hit, I meant if it was directed at the person, If I spat in your direction it wouldn't be assault, but if I spat on you it would.

I probably didn't explain my first point as well as I could have. I suppose that's what happens when you post just after waking up.

littlemac1980

source wrote: »

Edit: It may fall under Section 2(1)(b) but that would be stretching the definition there.

source wrote: »

As I said above, It may fall under 2(1)(b) but that would be stretching the definition.



Spitting on the ground near someone will not give them reasonable grounds to believe that they are immediately likely to be subjected to a force or impact.

It would be very hard to prove that it is assault, if someone spits on the ground beside you, whereas it would be much easier to prove that it was found to be threatening or insulting behaviour, under the public order act and a case would be more likely to succeed under those conditions than trying to fit spitting (which does not make contact with the body) into an assault charge.

In fairness to you and me both, when I began replying to your original comment, you had not amended it to include the reference to Subsection (b) of Section (2), which by the time I had posted my reply had been added, so that's where a bit of our current too-ing anf fro-ing is coming from.

source

littlemac1980 wrote: »

In fairness to you and me both, when I began replying to your original comment, you had not amended it to include the reference to Subsection (b) of Section (2), which by the time I had posted my reply had been added, so that's where a bit of our current too-ing anf fro-ing is coming from.

We're basically making the same point. So lets leave it at that.