Liverpool v Director of Public Prosecutions

For an offence under section 4(1) of the Public Order Act 1986, “immediate” unlawful violence does not mean instantaneous violence. It concerns proximity in time and causation, so that violence is likely within a relatively short period and without an intervening occurrence. Threatening words and behaviour may establish the necessary intent when assessed together. A threatening gun gesture, loud threats and aggressive conduct can therefore justify a finding that the defendant intended the victim to believe that immediate unlawful violence would be used.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated from his conviction by the Newham Justices on 31 August 2007 for using threatening behaviour contrary to section 4(1) of the Public Order Act 1986. During an altercation, he used loud abusive and threatening language, made a gesture as if firing a gun, and said that he would kill the victim.

The central issue was whether, on the facts found, the Justices were entitled to conclude that he intended the victim to believe that immediate unlawful violence would be used against her.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Justices were entitled to convict under section 4(1) of the Public Order Act 1986.
2. “Immediate” unlawful violence does not mean instantaneous violence. It requires proximity in time and causation, so that violence is likely to follow within a relatively short period and without another intervening occurrence, applying the approach in R v Horseferry Road Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Siadatan [1991] 1 QB 260.
3. The statutory intent may be inferred from the defendant’s words and behaviour viewed together. The hand gesture suggesting the firing of a gun, combined with loud and threatening language, amply justified the finding that the claimant intended the victim to believe that immediate unlawful violence would be used.
4. Mr Justice Aikens agreed with Lord Justice Scott Baker.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated was dismissed. The court affirmed the conviction entered by the Newham Justices on 31 August 2007.
• Newham Justices: The claimant was convicted of an offence under section 4(1) of the Public Order Act 1986.