Horgle, R (on the application of) v The Director of Public Prosecutions

For an offence under section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986, conviction may rest on the limb concerned with conduct likely to cause a person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used, even where the magistrates have not expressly found the intent required by the alternative limb. The court may infer the relevant conclusion from accepted evidence about threatening words, behaviour, and the victim’s reaction. Magistrates need not give reasons in elaborate or judgmental form. Their reasons are sufficient if the basis of the decision is clear and enables the defendant to understand why the conviction was entered and to assess any challenge.

This was an appeal by way of case stated from the Romford Magistrates. The claimant had been convicted under section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 after an incident involving threatening and abusive language towards Rachel Hilton. The magistrates’ reasons referred to an intention to cause fear, although the amended case stated asked whether conviction was permissible without an express finding of that intent. The central issues were whether the evidence supported conviction under the alternative limb of section 4 and whether the magistrates had given sufficient reasons.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The magistrates were entitled to convict under section 4 despite not expressly finding the intent required for the first limb. The accepted evidence of threatening, abusive and insulting language, combined with the conduct and its effect on Rachel Hilton, entitled them to conclude that the conduct was likely to induce a belief that immediate unlawful violence would be used.
2. The claimant correctly accepted that the evidence could also have supported the first limb, since the magistrates could infer the requisite intent from the accepted threats. They had not expressly stated that conclusion, however, so the court addressed the alternative basis.
3. Magistrates are not required to give reasons in the form of a judgment or in elaborate language. The basis of the decision must be clear. The reasons must enable the defendant to know why the conviction was entered and whether it is open to challenge. This reflects the principles discussed in R v City of Westminster (1996) 28 HLR 819, Thornton v Kirklees Borough Council [1979] 1QB 626, R v London borough of Croydon ex parte Graham [1993] 26 HLR 286, and R (McGowan) v Brent Justices [2001] EWHC Admin 814.
4. Although the phrase referring to an intent to cause fear was unhelpful, the reasons as a whole made clear that the magistrates accepted Hilton’s account, including the direct threats, her fear and distress, and the nature of the language used. The explanation was therefore sufficient to satisfy Article 6 and the applicable obligation to give reasons.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal by way of case stated from the Romford Magistrates dismissed. The court answered the amended question in the affirmative and upheld the conviction.