Do we need a contempt of the police law

[jake-the-peg]

A lot of silly talk going on in the media about the judge who over-ruled a charge against someone who swore at the police.

He rightly pointed out that the policemen were unlikely to have suffered distress from hearing bad language which was the pupose of the legislation.

All the usual suspects came out with the "thin end of the wedge" "respect for authority" arguments which are of course absolutely not the point.

You can be in a lot of trouble for contempt of cout but there is no contempt for the police law and it seems that the police may have been trying to create such a law by using this rather silly legislation.

So would the proper thing to do to be to introduce contempt of the police law or would that be a step too far towards an authoritarian police state?

[rov1100]

I knew someone who was convicted by police using 'verbals' as the jury was more inclined to believe the word of a police officer rather than the innocent suspect.

[pa___ul3]

me too rov, absolutely destoryed her life as she was in college training to be a nursery nurse, she has learning difficulties so has really struggled to find anything else that she can do.

[ludwig]

I'm not sure about the rights and wrongs of this particular case because I haven't read much about it, but in principle I find it a bit worrying that someone can wander up to a police officer and call them a c... and they're just supposed to shrug it off.

[exdc]

Not in the USA Ludwig

***WARNING, contains swearing and violence***

[Brenden]

Doubt if he will do that again exdc.

[DTCwordfan]

No is my answer - though teaching/brainwashing kids that it is unacceptable should be done and kids should have better respect for all authorities and services - stories of bad language with nurses for example.

The US is much tougher, especially the South, throw a "feck off" at say a cashier and watch the mayhem open up. There is less use of such language in public and particularly in front of services. Telling someone in a service to "feck off" or even a good cuss word on the phone will result in instant shutdown...and your name goes on their system.

Do the same here.

[New Judge]

It is unlikely that a jury was involved in your friend’s case, rov, unless the charge was something more serious than Section 5 and the swearing formed only a part of the evidence. Simply swearing attracts just a Section 5 charge, and this can only be dealt with by Magistrates.

[AlBags]

If they were to exercise that reason to 'charge' on every occasion swearing was aimed at the police .. then half the population that were out and about after 1.00 am on a Fri or Sat nite would be in the nick!
It needs a review .. Are we expected to believe a cop is traumatized or otherwise particularly affected by being sworn at? Should they be in the job if they are?

[rov1100]

Right on New Judge. It was a motoring offence but there was a lot of swearing going on at the time

[ludwig]

That clip looks fake exdc

[New Judge]

The problem is, AIBags, the Section 5 law used to prosecute transgressors has to be interpreted according to the effect it has on those on the receiving end. It is perfectly true that police officers are unlikely to suffer the same level of harassment, alarm or distress that some members of the public might in similar circumstances. That really lies at the root of the problem and if it is necessary to be judged thus, then there certainly is a need for either a revision of the existing law or new legislation.

Why I believe this to be so is that there is certainly no reason why anybody, including (and I would suggest especially) police officers should be subject to tirades of foul-mouthed abuse when trying to go about their lawful business. No business tolerates verbal abuse of its staff and the police should be no different. Parliament has decided that officers have the power to stop and question people whom they believe are involved in crime or disorder. Those stopped under such powers are not entitled to verbally abuse the officers any more than a disgruntled bank customer is entitled to shout and swear at the counter clerk who has told him he is overdrawn. If the current law is now unable to protect officers against such behaviour then it needs to be redrawn.

[exdc]

The reality is, if a person has been arrested and charged with a Sec 5 Public Order offence (case sent to court) then the conduct of the accused would have been very menacing, probably violent and pose a risk to the general public if not dealt with. Its worth noting that a person has to be warned re their behaviour and continue before they are arrested, they are usually fined at the station or Cautioned and only the more serious cases or serial offenders are actually sent to court. A custody Sgt certainly won't thank a Constable for arresting some one for Sec 5 and the offence requires a fair amount of process work etc, so officers would usually only arrest for this offence as a last resort.

Police Officers are conditioned to foul mouth violent fools but thats not the point and not really the point in the case heard by Judge Bean.

As New Judge states, why should anybody, including police officers be subjected to tirades of foul-mouthed abuse when trying to go about their lawful business. Perhaps a new simple law is now needed making it an offence to abuse a Public Official on duty etc.

The word 'insulting' in the act is currently under review but this is more to try and kerb the 'Lawfare' problems.