Knight v Director of Public Prosecutions

For an offence under section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986, threatening behaviour and the required intention may be inferred from the defendant’s conduct and the surrounding circumstances. Struggling violently to escape restraint may justify an inference that the defendant intended the restraining persons to believe that immediate unlawful violence would be used unless they released him. A court should not decide an alternative statutory basis that was not fairly advanced at trial, since the defendant must have a proper opportunity to meet the case.

The appellant was convicted by justices sitting at Aylesbury of an offence under section 4(1) of the Public Order Act 1986, after being restrained by nightclub doormen during an incident in which his friend had been seriously injured. He was acquitted of two alleged assaults on the doormen.

By case stated, he challenged the conclusion that his conduct amounted to threatening behaviour undertaken with the intent required by section 4. The central issues were whether the evidence supported the finding of intention and whether the court could rely on an alternative statutory basis that had not been fairly put before the justices.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The justices had been entitled to conclude that the appellant’s conduct amounted to threatening behaviour and that he intended the doormen to believe that immediate unlawful violence would be used against them.

2. The appellant’s post-incident comments were some evidence of his state of mind, but the more important evidence was his conduct while struggling against restraint. From that conduct, the justices could infer an intention equivalent to an understanding that, unless released, he would assault the doormen. That was sufficient evidence to support the conviction under section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986.

3. The information apparently identified an alternative basis, namely that the appellant’s behaviour made it likely that the doormen would believe violence would be used. However, there was insufficient material to show that this alternative case had been advanced before the justices. It would therefore be unfair to allow the conviction to stand or be supported on that basis, because the appellant had not had a fair opportunity to meet it. The distinction between the alternative bases was explained in Winn v the Director of Public Prosecutions [1992] 106 JPL 881.

4. No issue of self-defence arose. The defence had not been run on that basis, and there was no suggestion that the appellant’s friend was being attacked when the appellant was restrained.

No order as to costs was made.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated was dismissed.
• Justices for the County of Buckinghamshire, sitting at Aylesbury: The appellant was convicted under section 4(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 and acquitted of two alleged assaults.