Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Limited

For an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour must occur within the sight or hearing of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. Swearing at a police officer, without more, is insufficient. Where the surrounding circumstances make that consequence unlikely, an arrest warning under section 5 may be unjustified.

On the evidence, the court found that the claimant had used substantially the words attributed to him, including the word “pleb”, during an angry exchange with police officers at the Downing Street gates.

The claimant brought a defamation claim concerning reports of an incident at the Downing Street gates on 19 September 2012. A related claim was brought by Toby Rowland against the claimant. The central factual issue was what the claimant had said to police officers when refused permission to leave through the vehicle gates on his bicycle.

The court examined CCTV footage, timing evidence, expert speech evidence, contemporaneous police notes, subsequent accounts and the credibility of the witnesses. It also considered whether PC Rowland had been justified in threatening arrest under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

1. Factual finding. On the balance of probabilities, the claimant had said words substantially equivalent to: “Best you learn your fucking place. You don't run this fucking government. You're fucking plebs.” The court found that the politically significant word “pleb” had been used.
2. Evidence. The claimant’s account was inconsistent with the CCTV timings. The account given by PC Rowland was broadly consistent with the objective evidence, the timing evidence and the immediate accounts of the other officers. Differences between later accounts were treated as ordinary inconsistencies arising from repeated recollection of a brief and unexpected event, rather than evidence of fabrication.
3. Section 5. An offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 required threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour within the sight or hearing of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. Swearing at a police officer was not, by itself, enough. Given the secure gates, persons outside could not be caused harassment or alarm by words spoken inside. Distress to a particularly sensitive person was possible, but surprise and curiosity were more likely.
4. PC Rowland therefore lacked a proper basis for threatening arrest under section 5 and acted unwisely in doing so. The supplied judgment text ends after the court’s principal factual findings and does not state the final formal orders on the defamation claims.