Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Ah yep, section 4 is a bit
Ah yep, section 4 is a bit more serious. That can result in a prison sentence and I think has to involve the CPS. I suspect this would be a section 5, as it can be a police led prosecution and there’s no custodial penalty, just a fine:
Factors tending to indicate that a charge under section 4A is appropriate would include:
Sustained abuse
Targeting a lone victim
Significant effect on victimFactors tending to indicate that a charge under section 5 is sufficient would include:
Single remark
Victim is not alone/isolated
Effect is minor/transitoryYes, you’d have to be aware
Yes, you’d have to be aware that a swear word may be abusive. But I should think that test is passed easily in this case.
Be very wary of accepting a caution, it does go on your record and can have serious career limiting issues depending on what you do.
Get legal adviceThis is true.
The risks of going to court need to be balanced with the consequences of accepting the caution.
Many years ago a friend of mine accepted a caution for urinating up a back alley at 3am whilst a bit tipsy. He ended up having to disclose the caution when applying for a government job. Thankfully it didn’t hold him back, but everyone’s circumstances are different.
Hirsute wrote:
However, it is important to remember that proving the defendant’s intent is not enough. There must also be evidence of somebody (which need not be the person targeted) suffering actual harassment, alarm or distress as a result.From what I have read, this is not the case. Intent seems to be irrelevant and there’s no need to prove actual alarm/distress occurred…
It is exactly this – it is whether or not there is a hypothetical person who might reasonably have been in earshot, and who would potentially have been offended.
My argument is that my actions were reasonable given that I had just been through a very, very dangerous and scary incident.
There’s nothing hypothetical about it, if there was nobody there to offend then no offence has been committed. It is not enough for it to have happened in a publically accessible place, there actually needs to have been someone there to witness it and to have been ‘likely’ to have been alarmed (a low bar, unfortunately).
As to your defence, there seem to be two prongs to pleading reasonable conduct:
1. There is a statutory defence to ‘reasonable conduct‘, however, this appears to be more aligned with the conduct being generally reasonable, rather than as a measured reaction to an event.
2. Self-defence applies to this offence. If it can be proven that the actions were a reasonable form of self-defence, then no offence is committed. However, I am struggling to find examples in case law where verbal abuse has been accepted as a reasonable defence.
I am not a lawyer, so I may have not interpreted that correctly, but the law can be quite unfair sometimes. I would get some legal advice.
I would argue that it’s not at all likely that anyone in the UK would be offended by the use of the word “fuck”.I tend to agree. I certainly don’t think the driver, who was also using foul languge, could be seen as likely to be offended.
But it depends who else might have been there at the time. Basically, this charge could stick if there just happened to be someone walking past.
Whereas being naked in the woods filming kids? If nobody saw it, it’s not a section 5 apparently: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2004/2621.html
That could be interesting. The swearing itself would be a matter of fact, but whether or not the driver was “likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby” is more an opinion.It would also matter if there were other people within earshot, a third party not involved in the incident, and their perceived fragility to strong language.
Interesting case discussed here:
Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986: The Impact of Harvey v DPP
I don’t know what the condition was. Didn’t find out. I remain gobsmacked.I don’t know if the CPS is going to take this further. I’ll keep people updated. It will be a magistrates court in any case.
This is unlikely to go anywhere near the CPS. This offence is on the list of ‘police led prosecutions’ https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-led-prosecution-list-of-offences
In a similar way that the Post Office was able to take postmasters to court over the Horizon fraud allegations, the Police are able to take offenders to court without oversight of the CPS for certain offences.
Whether this goes to court or not is likely to be a decision solely made by the officer dealing with your case and their senior.
I am also gobsmacked, but you can’t rely on the process to be reasonable unfortunately.
This won’t involve a jury, it
This won’t involve a jury, it’ll be heard in front of a magistrate. They will likely be more matter of fact of whether the evidence meets the threshold for the offence. I’d be talking to a solicitor.
Blimey – a conditional
Blimey – a conditional caution is one up on a simple caution. What was the condition, don’t be the victim of dangerous driving again?
If you refuse the caution, I believe they are almost certain to take it to court:
15.1.4 Where the offender indicates that they do not wish to accept the caution or any of the conditions at that stage, the case will be considered again by the decision maker who will determine whether alternative conditions are appropriate or whether the case should proceed to prosecution. Where it proves not to be possible to give the caution because it is not accepted or reasonable conditions are declined the offender should be charged with the offence. In such circumstances an alternative out of court disposal may not be offered.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/conditional-cautioning-adults-dpp-guidance
Yep, many are just parking on
Yep, many are just parking on their front lawn, no dropped kerb, probably no planning permission to park there. I particularly liked this comment: “At least before you could reverse out with some more haste”. I’m not sure anyone should be hastily reversing out onto a main road whilst crossing a footway!
Furious residents claim they
Furious residents claim they have been blocked in their driveways after a council installed ‘ridiculous’ cycling wands along a new bike lane.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14043665/councils-cycling-safety-wands-dangerous.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crr97dl4740o
Mother and child escaped unharmed; unclear who was driving.
institutionally anti-cyclist
institutionally anti-cyclist
Sorry! But had to be said. Unfortunately, no advice because I’m in the TVP area and my recent experience with reports is a big black hole of nothingness. Although, I bet they’d be on it if someone complained about a cyclist under duress saying a rude word.
Quite frankly, I’m not sure this would get very far, possibly they’re just trying to scare you off from submitting reports. Maybe they’re hoping you will pleady guilty at interview so they can slap you with something and placate the driver.
I had a proper nutter run me off the road today, got out of his car and grabbed me. Really, this ought to be reported, an aggressive individual who needs taking off the roads. But I have no faith in the police anymore.
Heavy traffic “forces” driver
Heavy traffic “forces” driver to break the law…
https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/24631810.colchester-woman-forced-break-law-due-traffic-issues/
Her journey of 0.5 miles is a 10 min walk, 3 min cycle or 4 min drive! (Colchester Institute to Rawstorn Rd).
