Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

Public Order Act 1986, S. 4A: Proportionality and Freedom of Expression

Document Cited authorities 7 Cited in Related
Vincent
AuthorChris Newman
Published date01 June 2006
Date01 June 2006
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1350/jcla.2006.70.3.191
Subject MatterDivisional Court
JCL 70(3).doc..Divisional Court .. Page191 Divisional Court
Public Order Act 1986, s. 4A: Proportionality and
Freedom of Expression
Dehal v Crown Prosecution Service [2005] EWHC 2154, (2005) 169 JP 581
On 4 June 2003, the appellant, who was a practising Sikh, attended the
Sikh Temple (Gurduwara) in Luton, Bedfordshire. He placed a notice on
a board that was written in Punjabi. The notice described the President
of the Temple inter alia as a hypocrite, a liar, a police informant and
someone who exploited the congregation for his own ends. The Presi-
dent felt that the other worshippers would interpret this notice in the
same way and accordingly he felt that the note was harassing and
distressing. The appellant was subsequently charged with an offence
under s. 4A of the Public Order Act 1986. Section 4A(1)(b), so far as is
relevant here, provides that a person is guilty of an offence if, with intent
to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress he displays any writing,
sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or
insulting thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or
distress. In March 2004, the appellant was convicted at Luton Magis-
trates’ Court of the offence under s. 4A of the 1986 Act. The appellant
subsequently appealed against his conviction to the Crown Court at
Luton on the grounds that he did not behave in a manner which was
likely to cause harassment. The appellant stated that he was merely
expressing his religious views in an entirely peaceful way and his
freedom of expression was protected by virtue of Article 10(1) of the
European Convention on Human Rights. The Crown Court rejected this
submission and found that the appellant had intended to cause harass-
ment, alarm or distress and that his conduct could not be regarded
objectively as reasonable.
This decision was appealed by way of case stated. The questions being
asked of the High Court were twofold. First, the appellant argued that
the conviction under s. 4A of the 1986 Act was a...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT