Alarm Harassment Or Distress

[nailit]

Is there a UK law that identifies what EXACTLY constitutes alarm, harassment or distress?
Thanks?
Or is it a bit wishy washy?
TIA.

[Peter Pedant]

// A link to support the posts above, from myself and from Jackdaw33: // - - and PP - who got the judge and year right .....

[Jackdaw33]

Telling a judge to eff off in court would come under contempt of court, not the POA.

[nailit]

Chris,
if that's the case, can I get a refund from the prosecuting mags court? (seriously)?
Ive had police calling me ***** and when Ive retaliated with the same ive been arrested and prosecuted (and fined)
This alarm, harassment and distress thing only goes one way!

[Peter Pedant]

Harvey v DPP 2011
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 3992 (Admin)

it is actually quite a short judgement
the teleg URL is by Janet Daley who is so bad at law
that she would fit in quite nicely on AB

[Peter Pedant]

// Question AuthorChris,
if that's the case, can I get a refund from the prosecuting mags court? (seriously)?//

no - the fact that the law is changed does NOT allow you to revisit

after sentencing - defendant routinely tell jj to eff off innit?
and the judges dont do narfin
( perhaps whispering 'good point' as they sweep out)

time for the law French 1664 case
ject a brickbat que narrowly mist .....

see here

http://www.duhaime.org/LawFun/LawArticle-265/Contempt-Of-Court-Greatest-Hits.aspx

great fun !

[Peter Pedant]

T shirt with ACAB here

Brian Stableford's 2009 Exotic Encounters states that "many years ago" during a fad for wearing ACAB shirts, a British youth was arrested for incitement to riot for wearing one, and ineffectively claimed the shirt stood for "All Canadians Are ***".[7]

anyone got an old copy of SMith and Hogan ?

[New Judge]

Back to Planet Earth for a moment, every case turns on the individual facts put before the court. The question a court might have to decide could revolve around what a "person of reasonable firmness present at the scene" might apprehend. It might also have to be tempered with what the particular individual allegedly harassed or distressed might apprehend. There's lots of case law which may be cited as appropriate but there is not (and if you think about it) cannot be a definition of the offence.

[woofgang]

so is intent an issue or not?

[New Judge]

//so is intent an issue or not?//

It depends what offence is charged.

[woofgang]

NJ I was referring to the alarm harassment and distress thing

[New Judge]

Well then, Section 4a of the Public Order Act requires intent:

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

Whereas Section 5 doesn't:

A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

So, Section 4a "I upset you and meant to". Section 5 "I upset somebody and I didn't necessarily mean to."

[woofgang]

thanks NJ

[nailit]

Must admit,
Im non the wiser now.

//(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting//

But nothing in there clearly states what constitutes threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour.
I find a lot of things abusive or insulting or threatening in everyday life but doubt very much if the police would be interested in following them up.

[jno]

you won't be any the wiser until you try it and see what the court thinks. (It sounds as if the justice system stuffed you in the case you mention, but perhaps that was under rules that don't apply now).

There's no list of words that are alarming and words that aren't. Or actions.

[nailit]

//you won't be any the wiser until you try it and see what the court thinks.//
Shouldn't have to. Should be black and white!
Not one rule for one and another rule for another...depending on the whim of a judge/magistrate!

[nailit]

Or even the police...

[jno]

no, it can't be black and white. The law has to be ready to accommodate new modes of behaviour that may spring up from time to time, otherwise it wouldn't be able to cope with the neighbours flying a drone into your living room.

[nailit]

//otherwise it wouldn't be able to cope with the neighbours flying a drone into your living room//
EH?

[jno]

if your neighbours did that you could have them charged with causing alarm or harassment and hope the court agrees you're being harassed. But there's no law that specifically prevents them from doing so.

[nailit]

//But there's no law that specifically prevents them from doing so//

//flying a drone into your living room//
Think you will find laws that prevent people/things from entering private space.