Breach of the Peace: Firebrands and Brickbats
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X8405700103 |
| Date | 01 January 1984 |
| Author | Soondra M. Appavoo |
| Published date | 01 January 1984 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
SOONDRA
M.
APPA
VOO,
J.P.,
Ph.D.
J.P., Barrister, Principal Lecturer in Law,
Polytechnic
of
Huddersfield.
BREACH OF THE PEACE:
FIREBRANDS
AND
BRICKBATS
The
Police
and
sometimes the Judiciary come in for criticism. As
long as it is fair, none would object,
but
sometimes it can be grossly
unfair
and
biassed.
Unfair though it may be, the law does allow criticism.
Unpredictable as we are as humans, there is often comedy or tragedy
in
our
catalogue of behaviour.
Take
libel, which is fascinating
both
as
a
common
law criminal offence
and
as a tort. Slander or defamation
by spoken words only, it will be remembered, is a tort.
In Thorley v.
Lord
Kerry
(1812)1
it was held essential to the
criminal libel
that
publication tended to cause a breach of the peace.
Police Law (Moriarty) edited by
Sir
William J. Williams.t declares
that
"libel is an offence when it is likely to cause a breach
ofthe
peace
by exciting feelings of revenge, stirring up hatred against persons, or
tending to disturb the peace
and
good
order
of the country."
Truth
is
not
agood defence unless the accused
can
prove
that
it was for the
public good.
Any
libel concerning persons occupying judicial or
public office, for example a local magistrate or a police officer, must
be reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions. (See Prosecution
of Offences Regulations 1946, s. 6(2)(b».
Unlike defamation in tort, which requires publication to a third
party, the criminal libel suffices if published to the prosecutor alone,
bearing in mind the problems of proof. See Clutterbuck v. Chaffers
(1816).3
What
is more, the criminal libel need
not
reachthe victim, as
in R. v.
Adams
(1888). Defendant wrote aletter to X, which
contained an immoral proposal. On its interception by X's mother,
he was convicted, as it was held
that
such a letter would provoke a
breach of the peace by X
and
those connected with her.
The
tort
aspects are equally interesting. At one time
or
another
most people have been guilty of hurling brickbats- even in the form
of police bouquets. Abouquet, or high praise, may indeed be a
brickbat if it excites ridicule, contempt or hatred for its subject.
The
honey tongue
and
the heart
of
gall are
not
new, as to which see
the Holy Bible. The more subtle defamer uses innuendo.
Throughout
history men
and
women have been guilty of defaming
others. Ancient law has its examples even between rival traders
and
today,
throughout
the world, the daily newspaper often
carries the familiar advertisement of an apology where B having
January 1984 19
To continue reading
Request your trial