ChatterBank3 mins ago
In Public
Is your front garden classed as ' in public ' ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bazile. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The definition of "a public place" is interesting.
It means different things for different reasons. As has been mentioned, a machete in your front garden being used to chop back vegetation is no problem. However, waving it about and threatening passers by will see you on the wrong end of (at least) a Public Order Act offence even if the threats occur from well within the property's boundary. It has been ruled that the POA applies in such circumstances even though the offence is being committed whilst on private property.
For driving matters the issue is slightly different. Most of the Road Traffic Act applies to a "Road or other public place". Here, the ownership of the land in question is not material. The important issue is whether the public (in the form of other vehicles or pedestrians) have "unfettered access" to the area. This means that a supermarket car park, for instance, is almost invariably seen as a "public place" for these purposes even though the land may be owned by Tescos. However, an office car park to which only a few people have access and they gain entry by means of a controlled barrier would not be seen as public. The problem for the courts arises when there is, say, a car park that is "private" but which has no physical barrier, meaning anybody may drive into it, even though they are not authorised to do so.
It means different things for different reasons. As has been mentioned, a machete in your front garden being used to chop back vegetation is no problem. However, waving it about and threatening passers by will see you on the wrong end of (at least) a Public Order Act offence even if the threats occur from well within the property's boundary. It has been ruled that the POA applies in such circumstances even though the offence is being committed whilst on private property.
For driving matters the issue is slightly different. Most of the Road Traffic Act applies to a "Road or other public place". Here, the ownership of the land in question is not material. The important issue is whether the public (in the form of other vehicles or pedestrians) have "unfettered access" to the area. This means that a supermarket car park, for instance, is almost invariably seen as a "public place" for these purposes even though the land may be owned by Tescos. However, an office car park to which only a few people have access and they gain entry by means of a controlled barrier would not be seen as public. The problem for the courts arises when there is, say, a car park that is "private" but which has no physical barrier, meaning anybody may drive into it, even though they are not authorised to do so.
Yes I'd heard of that case, hc, and looked it up to remind myself. The defendant was convicted after being found in possession of a bayonet style knife over seven inches long. It was in a sheath and hidden from sight in a van which he would sleep in.
There is no doubt that a vehicle is a public place for these purposes. To allow otherwise effectively would permit people to have an offensive weapon readily to hand as they drive around - not much different to allowing them to have one in their pocket. There is a statutory defence against the charge - that of a lawful reason for the possession. The onus is on the defendant to convince the court that he had a lawful reason and Mr Spriddell was obviously unsuccessful. I must say I find it hard to think of a lawful reason why one would need a seven inch long bayonet in a vehicle, even one contained in a sheath.
There is no doubt that a vehicle is a public place for these purposes. To allow otherwise effectively would permit people to have an offensive weapon readily to hand as they drive around - not much different to allowing them to have one in their pocket. There is a statutory defence against the charge - that of a lawful reason for the possession. The onus is on the defendant to convince the court that he had a lawful reason and Mr Spriddell was obviously unsuccessful. I must say I find it hard to think of a lawful reason why one would need a seven inch long bayonet in a vehicle, even one contained in a sheath.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank8 mins ago
ChatterBank14 mins ago
My Daftest Question To Date. Lpg
How it Works19 mins ago
