Public Professions Vs Orum Essay

1044 Words3 Pages

In the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v. Orum (DPP v. Orum), in which the defendant was charged with two offences: C.6, S.5 (1) (a) of Public Order Act 1986, and C.48, S.51 (1) Police Act 1964. The defendant was acquitted of both charges at the Magistrates Court as it was ruled that a police constable is not considered likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress due to the nature of their job. As a result of this, the defendant was automatically not charged with the second offence as the constable had no power to arrest the defendant because the assault had taken place outside the police constable’s execution of duty.

In relation to this verdict, the case was appealed to the High Court, in which the following questions arose:
1. can a police constable be subjected to S.5 (1) (a) of Public Order Act 1986;
2. with the evidence provided to the Magistrates, would any other justice would have arrived at the same decision;
3. where Magistrates correct in ruling that the constables had not been acting in the execution of their duty after concluding there was no offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986;
4. whether the constables’ suspicion of an …show more content…

Furthermore, the Magistrates, due to insufficient evidence, were advised by their clerk that it was within their power to infer S.5 (1) (a) had taken place. The defence argued that section 5 of 1986 Act should be interpreted with the Public Order Act 1936 S.5 that was used in the case of Marsh v. Arscott. Defendant was charged under the Public Order Act 1936 S.5 which states any person using threatening, abusive or insulting words in a public place with the intention to cause a breach of peace or the breach is likely to be

More about Public Professions Vs Orum Essay

Open Document