public order act

GerJaxon

I was reading about public order act and "It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to use or engage in any threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned."

Does the person have to "intend to breach the peace" and what if the person abused is in public but you are not

If someone is at your car in the street and you tell him "F off from my car" from your upstairs bedroom window are you in public and have intent to breach the peace?

Or does it not matter where you are?

Pat Mustard

For this offence, intention to provoke breach of the peace is a necessary element.

The person who commits this offence must be in a public place.

I have seen successful arguments that defendants were on their own property at the time and therefore were not in a public place. The result was dismissal of the charge.

Pro Hoc Vice

The Mustard wrote: »

For this offence, intention to provoke breach of the peace is a necessary element.

The person who commits this offence must be in a public place.

I have seen successful arguments that defendants were on their own property at the time and therefore were not in a public place. The result was dismissal of the charge.

Intention or reckless.

GerJaxon

The Mustard wrote: »

For this offence, intention to provoke breach of the peace is a necessary element.

The person who commits this offence must be in a public place.

I have seen successful arguments that defendants were on their own property at the time and therefore were not in a public place. The result was dismissal of the charge.

but would it still not be abuse to say f off if there is no intention only protecting the car

Pat Mustard

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Intention or reckless.

Intention or recklessness, correct.

GerJaxon

The Mustard wrote: »

Correct.

what does reckless mean as distinct from intent

Pat Mustard

GerJaxon wrote: »

what does reckless mean as distinct from intent

Link

Walsh J in DPP v Murray explained the two. He stated that subjective recklessness is where the accused consciously took an unjustified risk which the accused knew existed

So in the context of public order issues, recklessness is a level of criminal intent which can mean that a person will be guilty of a crime if he foresees a risk that his threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour will cause a breach of the peace, but goes through with his actions anyway.

Pro Hoc Vice

GerJaxon wrote: »

what does reckless mean as distinct from intent

Intention I have considered and accept my action may cause a breach of the pease reckless I don't care or have not thought about it, the usual test is the reasonable person think the action would lead to a certain result.

GerJaxon

"Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, wilfully prevents or interrupts the free passage of any person or vehicle in any public place shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200."

who would have lawful authority or reasonable excuse,

source

GerJaxon wrote: »

"Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, wilfully prevents or interrupts the free passage of any person or vehicle in any public place shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200."

who would have lawful authority or reasonable excuse,

A Garda, customs officer, airport police officer(within the grounds of an aerodrome) basically anyone with a statutory power to stop a vehicle or person.

GerJaxon

13.—(1) It shall be an offence for a person, without reasonable excuse, to trespass on any building or the curtilage thereof in such a manner as causes or is likely to cause fear in another person."

What could be a reasonable excuse for putting someone in fear?

Pat Mustard

GerJaxon wrote: »

What could be a reasonable excuse for putting someone in fear?

Halloween?