Field v Metropolitan Police Receiver
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1907 |
| Year | 1907 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
Criminal Law - Riot - Intention to render mutual help against opposition - Force and Violence - Persons riotously and tumultuously assembled - Building injured or destroyed -
In order to constitute a riot five elements are necessary — (1.) a number of persons not less than three; (2.) a common purpose; (3.) execution or inception of the common purpose; (4.) an intent on the part of the number of persons to help one another, by force if necessary, against any person who may oppose them in the execution of the common purpose; (5.) force or violence, not merely used in and about the common purpose, but displayed in such a manner as to alarm at least one person of reasonable firmness and courage.
In an action under s. 2 of the Riot (Damages) Act, 1886, to recover compensation for the injury or destruction of a building by persons riotously and tumultuously assembled together, the following facts were proved:— At nine o'clock on a night at the end of October a number of youths of ages varying from fourteen to eighteen years were congregated together upon the foot-pavement of a road in a low neighbourhood shouting and using rough language. The pavement adjoined a nine-inch wall of considerable length inclosing a yard and let into a house. Some of the youths were standing with their backs against the wall, and others were running against them, or against the wall, with their hands extended. After they had gone backwards and forwards in this way for about fifteen minutes, the wall, to the extent of about twelve feet, fell. As soon as it fell the caretaker of the premises came out into the street, and the youths then dispersed in different directions:—
Held, that there was no evidence of any intention on the part of the youths to help one another by force if necessary against any person who might oppose them in the execution of their common purpose of injuring or destroying the wall, or of any force or violence (other than the force or violence used in the actual demolishing of the wall) displayed in such a manner as to alarm any person of reasonable firmness and courage; and therefore that the youths were not riotously and tumultuously assembled together within the meaning of s. 2 of the Riot (Damages) Act, 1886.
Semble, in order to sustain a claim under that section it is necessary to prove all the elements of a riot.
APPEAL from the Southwark County Court.
The action was brought to recover compensation under s. 2 of the Riot (Damages) Act, 1886F1, for injury to a wall, belonging to a house numbered 84, Martindale Road, Canning Town.
The plaintiffs were the legal owners of the house and wall, and the defendant was the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police District.
At nine o'clock on the night of October 30, 1906, a number of youths of ages varying from fourteen to eighteen years were congregated together upon the foot-pavement of a road named Martindale Road, shouting and using rough language. The pavement adjoined a nine-inch wall of considerable length, enclosing a yard and toothed into a house. Some of the youths were standing with their backs against the wall, and others were running against them, or against the wall, with their hands extended. After they bad gone backwards and forwards in this way for about a quarter of an hour, the wall, to the extent of from twelve to fifteen feet, fell. As soon as it fell, the caretaker of the premises came out into the street, and the youths then dispersed in different directions. There was evidence that the neighbourhood was a rough one, and that doors, windows, shutters, and water and gas fittings had been at other times destroyed, and that people had been frightened.
The county court judge found that the wall knocked down formed part of a building; that it was in such a state that it could not have been knocked down without considerable and repeated force; that the young men assembled on the pavement with the intention of knocking or pulling down the wall by force, and that, in pursuance of that intention, they did by force knock down the wall; that they did a wrongful act by violence; that their acts and conduct would occasion alarm to ordinary passengers; and that the mischief was done by the riotous and tumultuous conduct of the young men. He expressed his opinion that it was not necessary, in order to constitute a riot, that the parties accused of committing it should have any intention to defend each other against persons who might interfere with them.
He accordingly gave judgment for the plaintiffs for 3l. 10s.
The defendant appealed.
Horace Avory, K.C., and James Roberts, for the defendant. The county court judge has assumed as the basis of his judgment that it is sufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Brodie & Rainer Ltd v British Guiana & Trinidad Mutual Fire Insurance Company Ltd
-
Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company (Europe) Ltd v Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime
...22 The legal and historical background to the 1886 Act is of importance to both of the issues which arise on this appeal. In Field v Receiver of Metropolitan Police [1907] 2 KB 853 the Divisional Court discussed the ingredients of riot at common law. They pointed out that at common law riot......
-
Athens Maritime Enterprises Corporation v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd
...meaning.’ I therefore adopt, for this purpose, the definition of a riot provided in Field v. Receiver of Metropolitan PoliceELR [1907] 2 K.B. 853 by Phillimore J., at p. 860, and set out in the headnote: ‘In order to constitute a riot five elements are necessary—(1) a number of persons not ......
-
Duggan v Corporation of Dublin
...DISTRICT RECEIVER 1967 2 QB 970 FOSTERS OF CASTLEREAGH LTD V SECRETARY OF STATE 1976 NI 25 FIELD V RECEIVER OF METROPOLITAN POLICE 1907 2 KB 853 RIOT (DAMAGES) ACT 1886 CRIMINAL INJURIES TO PROPERTY (COMPENSATION ) ACT 1971 S3(2) (NI) MALICIOUS INJURIES ACT 1981 S5 MALICIOUS INJURIES ACT......
-
Lessons from Orgreave: Police Power and the Criminalization of Protest
...the 1985White Paper On Public Order' (1985) 23 J. of Law and Society 385.30 POA 1986, s. 1.31 Field v. Receiver of Metropolitan Police [1907] 2 K.B. 853, at 860.ß2019 The Author. Journal of Law and Society ß2019 Cardiff University Law need to establish a `common purpose' in their actions. A......
-
Recent Judicial Decisions
...and, in default, to go to prison for sixmonths.The following cases were referred to in that judgment:Field vMetropolitan Police Receiver [1907] 2 KB 853London &Lancashire Fire Insurance Co vBolands Ltd [1924] AC 836The Police Journal, Volume 74 (2001) Wise vDunning [1902] I KB 167Lansbury v......
-
Modernising Public Order Offences
...19th century definition by Hawkins. butmost recent decisions tend to follow Phillimore, J. in Field v.Recorderofthe Metropolitan Police (1907) 71J.P.494; [1970] 2K.B. 853, who decided the elements to be: at least three persons, acommon purpose, execution or inception of the common purpose,a......
-
Legal Notes
...such a manner as to give firm and courageous persons reasonableground to apprehend abreach of the peace (Field v. Metropolitan Police(1907), 2 K.B., 853, 859)·Anyone who takespartin an unlawful meeting is guilty of a misdemeanourat common law, if he does so with knowledge of the circumstanc......