Public Order Offence in UK Law

We are emboldened to say that there is a breach of the peace whenever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or in his presence to his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance.

I, for my part, agree with Mr Keith that the provisions of section 5 and section 6 of the Public Order Act, as enacted and applied by the courts of this country, contain the necessary balance between the right of freedom of expression and the right of others not to be insulted and distressed. The right to freedom of expression was well established in the United Kingdom before the incorporation of the Convention. Peaceful protest was not outlawed by section 5 of the Public Order Act.

The second requires an exercise of judgment, and will involve consideration of the public interest and the legitimate interests of the defendant. The public interest is generally served by the prosecution of those reasonably suspected on available evidence of serious crime, if such prosecution can be conducted without unfairness to or oppression of the defendant.

Section 21 of the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847 (of the powers conferred by which the Defendants' recited Order of March last purported to be an exercise) reads as follows: "The commissioners may from time to time make orders for the route to be observed by all carts, carriages, horses, and persons, and for preventing obstruction of the streets, within the limits of the special Act, in all times of public processions, rejoicings, or illuminations, and in any case when the streets are thronged or liable to be obstructed, and may also give directions to the constables for keeping order and preventing any obstruction of the streets in the neighbourhood of theatres and other places of public resort; and every wilful breach of any such order shall be deemed a separate offence against this Act, and every person committing any such offence shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings'.

If the answer to that question is no, then the court should go on to consider the interests of justice generally, and most particularly whether there is a real possibility that either the prosecution or the defence may suffer prejudice on account of the procedural failure.