R v Walker (Steven)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 April 1995 |
| Date | 06 April 1995 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Taylor of Gosforth, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Laws and Mr Justice Keene
Crime - outraging public decency - requirements
The common law offence of committing an act outraging public decency required more than the presence of at least two witnesses, since a further requirement was that the act had to be committed where a real possibility existed that members of the general public might witness the outrageous act.
The Court of Appeal so held when allowing an appeal by Steven Walker, aged 33, against conviction at Newcastle upon Tyne Crown Court (Judge Paling and a jury) of committing an act of a lewd, obscene and disgusting nature and outraging public decency by exposing his person in an indecent manner to two girls aged 10 in the sitting room of his home.
Mr James N Harper, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for the appellant; Mr Christopher Prince for the Crown.
MR JUSTICE LAWS, giving the judgment of the court, said that R v MaylingELR((1973) 2 QB 717) established no more than that a necessary condition for guilt of the offence was that at least two people must have been able to witness what happened.
A further requirement was, as stated in R v Knuller (Publishing, Printing and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Douglas v DPP
...first requires that the act be done in a place to which the public has access or in a place, as set out in R v. Walker (Steven) [1996] 1 Cr App R 111 where what is done is capable of public view. The filming by the appellant was done in a supermarket – a place to which the public had acces......
-
R v Simon Austin Hamilton
...the notes themselves, because there was nothing in the acts complained of here capable of outraging public decency.� iii) In Walker [1996] 1 Cr App R 111 the defendant exposed himself in the sitting room of a house to a young child. This court affirmed that two people must have been able t......
-
Rose v DPP
...the constituent ingredients of the offence had not been made out. 7 A number of authorities were referred to, including the cases of R. v. Walker (1996) 1 Cr.App.R. 111 and R. v. Shorrock [1994] 2 QB 279. 8 The Deputy District Judge states that he was of the following opinion. "(i) That the......
-
Secretary For Justice v Yau Yuk Lung Zigo And Another
...need not necessarily be one of public resort but must be one where the public are able to see what takes place there. R v Walker [1996] 1 Cr. App. R. 111 at 114 C-E. The question whether the common law offence in Hong Kong has the same requirements as those in England does not arise in this......
-
Treason Versus Outraging Public Decency: Over-Criminalisation and Terrorism Panics
...in publicand the outraging of public decency arose when the public heard of the event.”107. Rose v DPP [2006] 1 WLR 2626; R v Walker [1996] 1 Cr App R 111; R v Thallman (1863) Le. & Ca. 326.108. HKSAR v Chan Yau Hei (2014) 17 HKCFAR 110 at 117.109. It need not outrage any particular person;......