NW, R v

For violent disorder under section 2 of the Public Order Act 1986, persons are present together if they are in the same place at the same time. The provision does not require them to share a common purpose, act in concert, cooperate, or foresee wider disorder. The statutory focus is the collective effect of their unlawful violence or threats on a person of reasonable firmness at the scene. Whether persons were present together is ordinarily a factual question for the jury, using the ordinary meaning of the words.

R v NW was an appeal against a conviction for violent disorder following an incident in Croydon town centre. The appellant, then aged 15, struggled with a police officer while a crowd gathered. Members of the crowd were said to have threatened or used violence towards the officers.

At trial, the appellant contended that she was involved only in a personal struggle and had not acted in concert with the crowd. Her submission of no case to answer was rejected, although her co-defendants were acquitted at that stage. The jury convicted her and the Crown Court imposed a Community Punishment and Rehabilitation Order.

The appeal raised the meaning of present together in section 2 of the Public Order Act 1986: whether it required deliberate combination with at least two others, or only the presence of three persons separately using or threatening unlawful violence.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge was entitled to leave the charge of violent disorder to the jury and his directions were correct.

2. Section 2 of the Public Order Act 1986 is directed to public disorder. Its gradation from riot is deliberate: section 1 requires a common purpose, whereas section 2 does not. The individual intentions of those using or threatening violence are immaterial beyond the intention to use or threaten that violence.

3. The expression present together in section 2 means no more than being in the same place at the same time. It does not require a common aim, common motive, concerted action, cooperation, conscious participation with others, or foresight that broader disorder may result. The requirement that the participants’ conduct be assessed together directs attention to the overall effect of otherwise unrelated acts or threats of violence.

4. The Law Commission material supported that natural reading. It envisaged an element of numbers without common purpose or concerted conduct, provided that the conduct taken together would cause the statutory fear for personal safety.

5. On the evidence, the jury could find that the appellant and at least two members of the crowd were in the same place and used or threatened unlawful violence. No further explanation of present together was required. If the issue arises, it is a factual question and the jury should apply the ordinary meaning of the words, consistently with Brutus v Cozens [1973] A.C. 854.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in R v NW, [2010] EWCA Crim 404, dismissed the appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at Croydon — convicted NW of violent disorder and imposed a Community Punishment and Rehabilitation Order.