Muzzling the Concientious Citizen
| Author | Michael Duggan |
| Published date | 01 September 1983 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1983.tb02543.x |
| Date | 01 September 1983 |
662
THE
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
[Vol.
46
part of our community although not technically domiciled here4D from
practising polyg,amy
in
this country. Nor does it take into account
that there are three parties to
a
polygamous marriage and therefore
does nothing to protect the first wife.5o
Until the law of domicile
is
reformed or a preferable connecting
factor found to govern capacity to marry reforms of
law
in this area
will of necessity be imperfect, albeit intrinsically worthwhile as are
the recommendations in the Working Paper under discussion. Mean-
while those recommendations shouhd be implemented as they are a
substantial improvement
on
the position following
Hussain
v.
Hussain.
RHONA
SCHUZ*
MUZZLING
THE
CONCIENTIOUS CITIZEN
MUCH
concern has been expressed
in
recent months over the scope of
the offence of obstructing a police officer
in
the execution of his duty.'
The decision of the Divisional Court in
Hills
v.
Ellis
will undoubtedly
incur criticism from civil libertarians., not least because of the ambiguity
of
the principle: it enunciates and the dangers it poses for the
"
concien-
tious citizen
"
when applied to other factual situations.
Mr. Hills,
the
defendant, and a friend were making their way from
a
football match which had just concluded. They witnessed a fight
between two men. Mr. Hills formed the view that one of them was the
innocent party. When
P.C.
Grey arrested the man Mr. Hills considered
to be innocent, the defendant intervened on the
"
innocent man's
"
behalf. To overcome the crowd noise, he addressed
P.C.
Grey in a loud
voice but
P.C.
Grey still failed
to
hear what was said. He then grabbed
the constable
Iby
the elbow to gain his attention in order
to
inform him
he had arrested the wrong man
so
the constable, if he wished, could
revise his decision. The prosecutor, who had witnessed all this, warned
Mr.
Hills
that
if
he did not desist, he would be arrested for ob~truction.~
When the defendant did not do
so,
lne was arrested and charged.
It
is important to note the findings of the justices.4 They were of
opinion that, in intervening, Mr. Hills
"
conducted himself in an
excited and agitated fashion," his manner of intervention
"
failed
to
take into account the problems of the omcer in making an arrest
against the background of many people leaving the football ground
4D
See Poulter
(1983)
Farnity
Law
72,
73.
6o
This problem could be largely remedied by making a
''
monogamous
"
marriage an
*
Lecturer in
Law,
London
School
of
Economics.
absolute bar
to
subsequent polygamous marriages.
Largely because recent decisions.appear to be extending the width
of
the offence; see
Rickerrs
v.
Cox
(19821
Crim.L.R.
184;
Lidstone (19821
N.L.J.
953;
Gibbons (19831
Crim.L.R.
21
;
Lidstone(l9831 0im.L.R. 29.
(198312
W.L.R.234.
Ofcourse no power exists to arrest
for
obstructionper
se
but
it
seems that the breach
of the peace element
would
furnish a power
of
arrest; see
R.
v.
Holvell
(19811
3
W.L.R.
501.
119831
2
W.1L.R. 234,236B-E.
To continue reading
Request your trial