R v Horseferry Road Justices, ex parte Siadatan
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Judgment Date | 09 April 1990 |
| Date | 09 April 1990 |
Crime - Public order - Abusive or insulting writing provoking violence - Distribution of book likely to provoke unlawful violence - Whether offence restricted to “immediate” unlawful violence -
The applicant laid an information against the publishers of the “Satanic Verses” alleging that they had distributed copies of the book which contained abusive and insulting writing whereby it was likely that unlawful violence would be provoked, contrary to section 4(1) of the Public Order Act 1986F1. After an oral hearing on 27 June 1989, the metropolitan stipendiary magistrate refused to issue a summons, on the ground that the words “such violence” in section 4(1) meant “immediate unlawful violence” and the applicant had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of immediate violence.
On the applicant seeking judicial review of the magistrate's decision:—
Held, dismissing the application, that on a true construction of section 4(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 and in the context of Part I of the Act, “such violence” referred back to the earlier uses of the word “violence” as qualified by the other words appearing in the same phrases, and meant “immediate unlawful violence;” that such a reading accorded with the principle that of two possible readings of a penal statute the courts should adopt the alternative that limited the scope of the offence created; and that, accordingly, the magistrate had correctly refused to issue the summons (post, pp. 1010G, 1011C–H).
Per curiam. The word “immediate” does not mean “instantaneous” but connotes proximity in time and proximity in causation; that it is likely that violence will result within a relatively short period of time and without any other intervening occurrence (post, p. 1012C–D).
No cases are referred to in the judgment.
The following cases were cited in argument:
Attorney-General v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd. (No. 2) [
Broome v. Cassell & Co. Ltd. [
Cozens v. Brutus [
Fothergill v. Monarch Airlines Ltd. [
Parkin v. Norman [
Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [
Reg. v. Miah [
Sunday Times v. United Kingdom (
Application for judicial review.
On 19 June 1989 the applicant, Sayid Mehdie Siadatan, an Iranian national living in the United Kingdom, laid an information before the Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court alleging that Penguin Books Ltd. (“Penguin”) had committed an offence contrary to section 4(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 by distributing books entitled “The Satanic Verses” by Mr. Salman Rushdie containing abusive and insulting writing whereby it was likely that unlawful violence would be provoked.
Following an oral hearing on 27 June 1989 the magistrate, Mr. Eric Crowther, refused to issue a summons. On 6 November 1989 the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division (Parker L.J. and Tudor Evans J.) granted the applicant leave to move for judicial review of the magistrate's decision. By a notice of motion dated 8 November 1989 he sought an order of certiorari to bring up and quash the magistrate's decision.
The grounds of the application were that (1) “The Satanic Verses” had provoked unlawful violence, including a bomb attack on the Penguin Book Shop at 157, Kings Road; (2) Penguin mwst have been aware of the risk of unlawful violence before the publication of the book in September 1988 and they had since persisted in its distribution despite the unlawful violence it had caused and continued to cause; (3) the first limb of section 4(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 (namely, “A person is guilty of an offence if he … (b) distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person”) was restricted to cases where the unlawful violence was immediate, but that the magistrate erroneously concluded that the limb relied on by the applicant (namely, “It is likely that such violence will be provoked”) was also so restricted and declined on that basis to issue a summons though he found that all the other elements of the offence were sufficiently established for the purpose of issuing a summons; (4) as a matter of construction that interpretation of the section was an error of law, and the limb relied on applied to unlawful violence whether immediate or not. In particular that the phrase “such violence” in the limb relied on by the applicant referred back to the last use of the word “violence” which was qualified only by the word “unlawful”; (5) interpretation in such cases should be left to the court of trial and that it was unreasonable and wrong in principle to decline to issue a summons at all.
The facts are stated in the judgment.
Geoffrey Nice for the applicant.
Anthony Lester Q.C. and David Pannick for Penguin.
Geoffrey Robertson Q.C., Edward Fitzgerald and Keir Starmer...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
- Mbasogo and another v Logo Ltd and Others
-
Nicholas Loizos v Carlton and United Breweries Ltd [NTR]
...Co Ltd (In Receivership) (1990) 1 AC 546, referred to. R v Horseferry Road Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate; ex p. Siadatan (1991) 1 QB 260, referred to. Perfect v Northern Territory of Australia (unreported, Supreme Court of Northern Territory (Mildren J), 29 May 1992), referred to. Ho......
-
DPP v Mark Thomas Ramos
...in brackets is established by the decision of this court in R v Horseferry Road Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Siadatan [1991] 1QB 260. At 269E Watkins LJ, giving the judgment of the court, said - "It seems to us that the word 'immediate'does not mean 'instantaneous'; that a r......
-
Wayne Valentine v DPP
... ... case stated against his conviction by the Grantham Justices on 22nd July 1996 for threatening behaviour contrary to ... their three-year old daughter at a house in Bridge End Road, Grantham. The Justices found that two incidents occurred ... Assistance on that point is to be found in R v Horseferry Road Metropolitan Magistrate, ex parte Siadatan [1991] 1 QB ... ...
-
Divisional Court
...Magistrate, ex pSiadartanIn R v Horseferry Road Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex pSiadartan [1990] 3WLR1006 the applicant sought judicial reviewof the magistrate's refusal to issue a summons against Penguinbooks alleging an offence under s 4(1) of the PublicOrderAct1986, by distribut......
-
Public Order: Immediacy of Unlawful Violence under S. 4
...The courtreferred to the judgment of Watkins LJ in R vHorseferry Road MetropolitanStipendiary Magistrate, ex p. Siadatan [1991] 1 QB 260, [1991] 1 All ER 324where it was stated that ‘immediate’ connotes proximity in time and123The Journal of Criminal Law (2009) 73 JCL causation that makes i......
