Williams v Crown Prosecution Service

A charge under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 is sufficiently particularised where it identifies the time, place and person targeted, and makes clear the conduct alleged. Separate charges are not required for threatening words, abusive words, threatening behaviour and disorderly behaviour arising from the same incident.

Liability under section 5 depends on the statutory elements, including whether the words or behaviour were likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Actual distress need not be proved. The assessment is fact-sensitive and may include the circumstances, the language used, the people present and the conduct of police officers. An appeal by case stated succeeds only for an error of law or an irrational factual conclusion.

This was an appeal by way of case stated from the Crown Court at Merthyr Tydfil. The Crown Court had dismissed the claimant’s appeal and upheld his conviction by the magistrates for an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

The claimant challenged the precision of the amended charge under rule 7.3 of the Criminal Procedure Rules. He also argued that the Crown Court’s findings did not establish that his abusive words and conduct were likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, and that it had wrongly rejected his statutory defence. The central question was whether the Crown Court was entitled in law to dismiss his appeal on its findings of fact.

1. Charge. The amended charge complied with rule 7.3 of the Criminal Procedure Rules. It identified the time, place and person towards whom the words or behaviour were directed. It gave sufficient information to make clear what the claimant was alleged to have done. The prosecution was not required to prefer separate charges for each form of offending within section 5 arising from the same incident.
2. Elements of the offence. Section 5 required proof of threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. Actual harassment, alarm or distress was unnecessary. By section 6, the prosecution also had to show that the defendant intended the words or behaviour to be threatening or abusive, or was aware that they might be so.
3. Application. Whether language or behaviour was threatening or abusive was principally a question of fact. The Crown Court was entitled to find that the repeated insults, accompanied by the claimant raising his hands towards the officer, were threatening or abusive. The claimant’s anger or perceived justification did not alter the character of the language. The assessment of likely harassment, alarm or distress was fact-sensitive. A police officer could be the relevant person, although caution was required because officers were expected to show resilience. The court had to consider all the circumstances, including the time, place, language, persons involved and other people present. The evidence supported the Crown Court’s findings.
4. Appellate restraint and outcome. The Crown Court was entitled to reject the claimant’s challenges to intention and reasonableness. There was no error of law, and its decision was not perverse, irrational or one which no reasonable tribunal could have reached. The question stated for the High Court was answered in the affirmative and the appeal by way of case stated was dismissed.

• Crown Court at Merthyr Tydfil: dismissed the claimant’s appeal against his conviction by the magistrates and upheld the conviction.
• High Court (Administrative Court): answered the case stated question affirmatively and dismissed the appeal.