Recent Judicial Decisions
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X9106400414 |
| Author | John Wood |
| Date | 01 October 1991 |
| Published date | 01 October 1991 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
PROFESSOR SIR
JOHN
WOOD, C.B.E., L.L.M.,
The University
of
Sheffield Legal Correspondent
of
the Police Journal
RECENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS
ANNOYING PASSENGERS
Cheeseman v. Director
of
Public Prosecutions
[1991] 2 W.L.R.l105 Court of Appeal
Complaints had been made to the police who went to a public lavatory and
saw the appellant masturbating. He was alone, no other person was
present. He was charged under the familiar s.28
of
the Town Police
Clauses Act 1847 of wilfully and indecently exposing his person in a street
to the annoyance of passengers. He was convicted by the magistrates and
appealed.
The basis
of
the appeal was that there had been no annoyance to
passengers proved. The magistrates had taken the view that the policemen
who arrested the accused were passengers who were capable
of
being
annoyed by the conduct. It was held that it was unnecessary for individuals
to be called - Woolley
v.
Corbishley (1960) 24 J.P.773. He was fined and
ordered to pay
cost'>.
The central point being made was that there was no evidence of
annoyance to anyone who could be describedas a passenger. The offence
is common and the wording of the offence plainly both technical - in that
'passengers' bears a meaning, different from its current one
of
'rider in a
car Orbus' and retains its archaic meaning
of
'passer-by'. Street has also
atechnical meaning, having been extended by the Public Health Acts
Amendment Act 1907 to include 'any place of public resort or recreation
ground belonging to, or under the control of, the local authority..:
The police officers, membersof the vice squad, were there as a matter
of duty. It was argued that in the absence of the presence of anyone else
no offence had been committed. Two old cases have a bearing on this
point. In Lees v. Stone (1919) 121 L.T.154 aconstable had been placed on
ahighway to protect passers-by from a shoot that was taking place. An
offence of firing too close to the highway arose, and one of the key features
of this offence was the presence of a person travelling on the highway. It
was held that the police officer placed there with a specific duty could not
fulfil that definition. In Russon v. Dutton (No)2 (1911) L.T.601 the
offence was using obscene language in a public place to the annoyance of
passengers. The facts were that a publican used foul language to two
police officers who had visited the public house to investigate asuspected
offence. The point being taken that they were not, in the circumstances,
'passengers', but this was rejected. On appeal, the case was allowed,
chietlyon the point that the public house did not qualify as a 'publicplace'
under the particular statute but it was also doubted whether they could be
regarded as 'passengers'.
The opposite point of view has the support of Woolley's case cited
October 1991 365
To continue reading
Request your trial