Le Vine v DPP
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE ELIAS,MR JUSTICE KEITH |
| Judgment Date | 06 May 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 1128 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 06 May 2010 |
| Docket Number | co/4271/2010 |
[2010] EWHC 1128 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Before: Lord Justice Elias
Mr Justice Keith
co/4271/2010
MR SEELIG appeared on behalf of the Claimant
MR BLAKE appeared on behalf of the Defendant
(As Approved)
: This is an appeal by way of Case Stated from a decision of District Judge Simpson sitting at the West London Magistrates' Court when on 20 January 2010 he convicted the appellant of an offence contrary to section 4A(1) and (5) of the Public~Order~Act 1986. The issue raised in this appeal is the meaning of the word 'dwelling' within section 8 of the 1986 Act. More specifically it is whether a laundry room which is used communally by tenants in sheltered housing property constitutes a dwelling for the purposes of that section.
The relevant facts as found by the judge are set out in the Case Stated as follows:
(1) the appellant and Mrs Gerlach were residents in separate self-contained independent living flats, amongst others, in sheltered accommodation at 22 Pembridge Villas;
(2) all residents of 22 Pembridge Villas have the use of communal entrances and if they wish a lounge, a toilet, and a small laundry room in the basement;
(3) on 26 September 2009 Mrs Gerlach wished to use the washing machine and dryer in the communal laundry room, which is restricted to residents;
(4) at that time the appellant had a visitor who was using the machine, so Mrs Gerlach spoke to her in the visitors lounge and indicated she would return to use the machine when it had finished its cycle;
(5) when Mrs Gerlach returned the cycle had finished and she took the visitor's washing from the machine and loaded her own;
(6) the appellant then entered the laundry room, shouting at Mrs Gerlach, “you fucking bitch, who do you think you are, putting your dirty hands in the laundry?”, followed by, “you fucking cunt, I am going to knock your block off”, words which were intended to cause Mrs Gerlach alarm and distress. He then left the premises to go to the laundrette.
The rlevant legislation is this: section 4A of the Public~Order~Act states in broad terms that a person is guilty of an offence if with the intent cause another person harassment, alarm or distress he uses threatening, abusive insulting words or behaviour, thereby causing that other person harassment, alarm or distress.
Section 4A(2) is as follows:
“an offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used or the writing, sign or other visible representation is distributed or displayed by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.”
Section 8 then defines dwelling in the following way:
“Dwelling means any structure or part of a structure occupied as a person's home or as other living accommodation (whether the occupation is separate or shared with others) but does not include any part not so occupied, and for this purpose structure includes a tent, caravan, vehicle, vessel or other structure.”
The short point, as I say, is whether a laundry room was embraced within the concept of 'dwelling'. The prosecution said that it was not part of the homes of either of the parties, nor was it living accommodation. The appellant contended that it was part of the home. The judge expressed his conclusions as follows:
“I was of the opinion that each flat within 22 Pembroke Court was a self contained, independent dwelling occupied by each resident as their home. The fact that residents could, if they wished to, go to the basement to use a communal laundry facility does not make that room part of the resident's home or other living accommodation.”
Accordingly, he convicted the appellant but posed the following question for the opinion of this court:
“Was I correct in finding that the laundry room within a sheltered housing property was not a dwelling for the purposes of section 8 of the Public~Order~Act 1986?”
Mr Blake, counsel for the appellant, in his skeleton argument focused in particular on the origins of section 4A. He said it is plain that Parliament would not have contended that communal property of this kind should fall outwith the definition of a dwelling. The predecessor of section 4A was section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Director of Public Prosecutions v Jane Distill
...is a place where a person is detained in custody, not a place which a person occupies as living accommodation." 26 In Le Vine v DPP [2010] EWHC 1128 (Admin) the appellant had been charged with, and convicted of, an offence contrary to section 4A(1) of the 1986 Act. He had allegedly gone int......
-
Cases: Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6
...EWHC 3353 (Admin),(2010) 174 JP 149 189Goldsmith v DPP [2009] EWHC 3010(Admin) 7HM Advocate v Graham [2010] HCJAC50 510Le Vine v DPP [2010] EWHC 1128 388Omojudi v United Kingdom (ApplicationNo. 1820/08, 24 November 2009) 113R (on the application of F and Thompson)v Secretary of State for th......