Harvey v DPP
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | JUSTICE BEAN |
| Judgment Date | 17 November 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWHC 3992 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/6980/2010 |
| Date | 17 November 2011 |
[2011] EWHC 3992 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Bean
CO/6980/2010
Mr S Natas (instructed by Irvine Thanvi Natas) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr B Lenard (instructed by DPP) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
On 10 March 2009, at Bradstock Road, London E9, PC Challis and PCSO Mcllvaney were looking for people who, the police had been informed, might be in possession of cannabis. They found one young woman and three young men, including the defendant, Denzel Cassius Harvey, outside a block of flats. The officers decided to search the three men. Mr Harvey objected and said, "Fuck this man, I ain't been smoking nothing". PC Challis told him that if he continued to swear he would be arrested for an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act. PC Challis searched the appellant but found no drugs, whereupon the appellant said, "Told you, you won't find fuck all". The officer again warned him about swearing and proceeded to search the other two men. A group of people had gathered around them. The officer next used his radio to carry out a name search to see if any of the group was wanted by the police. He asked the appellant if he had a middle name and the appellant replied, "No, I've already fucking told you so". The officer arrested Mr Harvey for the offence under section 5.
A struggle ensued during which PC Challis alleged that the appellant assaulted him. The appellant was in due course charged, firstly with assault on a police officer in the execution of his duty, and secondly with using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour contrary to section 5 of the 1986 Act. He was convicted on the latter charge and fined £50. He was acquitted on the charge of assault. I mention it as part of the history because some people learning of this appeal by way of case stated from the conviction might wonder whether it was a wise use of resources for him to have been prosecuted under section 5 in the first place, had that charge stood alone; but it came before the magistrates accompanying the much more serious one of assault on the constable.
The prosecution relied on the three incidents of swearing in the exchanges to which I have referred. Such language is familiar to most courts. A search on the legal database Lexis for cases in which either the word "fuck" or the word "fucking" appear produces 2,124 results. Even allowing for duplication in the way that cases are reported and transcribed, or for cases which appear in more than one report, the total is still very large. Fortunately Mr Natas for the appellant, and Mr Leonard for the respondent, in their concise and helpful submissions, only found it necessary to cite six of the many cases which bear on this vexed topic. They show a clear line of authority.
It is important to note that before the magistrates neither officer gave evidence of having been harassed, alarmed or distressed. The nearest anyone came to this is that PC Challis was asked if the word "fuck" justified an arrest and replied that it depends on the circumstances, but here it was said loudly and clearly. Nor was there evidence of anyone else having been harassed, alarmed or distressed. In paragraph 5 of the case stated, the justices wrote:
"We were of the opinion that the offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 had been proved. We believed that this was a public area in the middle of a block of flats: there were people around who do not need to hear frightening and abusive words issuing from a young man. It was not only the words but the tone in which they were said which causes alarm."
As Mr Lenard observed in his submissions for the prosecution, the last sentences are ungrammatical, and the mixture of the present tense and past tense makes it difficult to say whether these were findings of facts or general propositions.
The justices went on to state three questions for the opinion of this court:
"(i) As part of the reason for the decision that Denzel Harvey had committed the offence alleged under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, were the justices entitled to conclude that the use by the Appellant of the words "Fuck this man. I ain't been smoking nothing", and "Told you you wouldn't find fuck all", and "No. I've fucking told you no", amounted to threatening, abusive or insulting words and/or behaviour or disorderly conduct.
"(ii) As part of the reason for their said decision were the justices entitled to conclude that either Police Constable Challis or Police Community Support officer Mcllvaney were likely to have been caused harassment, alarm or distress as a result of the use by the Appellant of the said words referred to in (i) above, in the absence of any specific evidence that either officer felt threatened by the Appellant's conduct or felt harassed, alarmed or distressed.
"(iii) As part of the reason for their said decision were the justices entitled to include that the bystanders who witnessed the incident or who may have been in the open area of the flats or resident in their homes were persons likely to have been caused harassment, alarm or distress, in the absence that any specific evidence that such result was likely." [emphasis added]
A number of cases establish that expletives such as "fuck" or "fucking" are potentially abusive words, whether the addressee is a police officer or a member of the public. But Parliament has not made it an offence to swear in public as such. The elements of the offence under section 5 (1)(a) of the Public Order Act 1986 (so far as it relates to the words) are that the defendant used threatening, abusive or insulting words within the hearing of someone else who was caused or was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress by hearing them. In DPP v Orum [1989] 88 Cr App Rep 261, Glidewell LJ said:
"Very frequently words and behaviour with which police officers will be wearily familiar...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ronald Waller v Crown Prosecution Service
...offence had been made out in the way they set out. 23 I should say that I was referred to Harvey v Director of Public Prosecutions [2011] EWHC 3992 (Admin). That was a case in which the charge was one of using threatening or abusive or words or behaviour contrary to section 5 of the Public ......
-
Robert Lukaszewski v Polish Judicial Authority
...his view this would not constitute an offence under English law. My attention was also drawn to the decision of Bean J, as he then was, in Harvey v DPP [2011] EWCA 3992, where, in relation to the multiple use of the words "fuck" and "fucking", he found at paragraph 13 that: "Where witnesses......
-
Director of Public Prosecutions v Richie Smith
...and Ms Wright concedes that it was. But that is not the same thing as a finding that they caused anyone alarm or distress. She cited Harvey v DPP [2011] EWHC 3992. 14 In Harvey the defendant, who was being arrested (on a charge of which he was subsequently acquitted), swore at the two arres......
-
Bracken v. Niagara Parks Police, 2018 ONCA 261
...public order in some way: see Coleman v. Power, [2004] HCA 39, at paras. 193, 257-258; Harvey v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [2011] EWHC 3992 (Admin), 2011 W.L. 5105637, at paras. 12-15. [29] In domestic criminal law, shouting “insulting or obscene” language is insufficient to constitu......
-
Swearing and s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986
..... Page1 Divisional Court Swearing and s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 Harvey v DPP [2011] EWHC 3992 (Admin) Keywords Public order; Police officers; Language; Stop and search; Causing harassment, alarm or distress Police officers, acting on intelligence, were looking for people in posses-......
-
Recent Judicial Decisions
...more co-operative, with recourse to law being a last option which rarelyneeds to be used.Swearing at police officersHarvey v DPP [2011] EWHC 3992 (Admin)Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)17 November 2011Magistrates’ court had convicted Harvey of an offence undersection 5 of the ......
-
Cases Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6
...Justice 296 R v JM and SM [2012] EWCA Crim 2293 7 Foye v R [2013] EWCA Crim 475 360 R v McNally [2013] EWCA Crim 1051 464 Harvey v DPP [2011] EWHC 3992 R v Nelson [2013] EWCA Crim 30 102 (Admin) 98 R v Ogden (Robert) [2013] EWCA Crim 1294 462 James, Wells and Lee v United Kingdom R v Smith ......