So who can be said to hold illegal views under the Public Order Act?

Thursday, 20th September 2018

John Sadler cartton - Megaphone two

Cartoon by John Sadler 

• MEGAPHONE man Danny Shine’s conviction under the Public Order Act provokes the question of what exactly the law means, (I’m retiring, says London’s famous megaphone man, September 13).

Despite the act having been passed over 30 years ago, the courts do not appear to have clarified the matter. An essential ingredient for a criminal offence to be committed is to say or do something within the hearing or sight of someone likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

Does that mean that any even mildly controversial statement or gesture can become criminal if someone of sufficiently acute sensitivity (or claimed to be) happens to be nearby?

Or are the actual bystanders to be assumed as being of normal resolution for persons generally like them? Is the test subjective or objective in other words?

This is not a dry legal point since, if the former, anyone can be summoned to court for almost anything at all. Their fate will depend upon the claimed psychological state of every person listening to them. That is not a reasonable basis for the freedom of speech we are told we enjoy as a human right.

It would mean that almost nothing could safely be voiced for fear of a single excessively sensitive listener. One hopes that Mr Shine’s appeal may provide some clarification.

MICHAEL NEWLAND
Leighton Road, NW5

Related Articles