View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

The Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 presents another variation in relation to the
issue of the continuation of common lawoffences alongside statutory offences. The Act
provided a modern statement of the law in relation to the regulation of public order and
could be considered a mini codification of the law (Expert Group 2004:22). Specifically,
the preamble to the Statute states that the purpose of the Act is “to abolish certain
common law offences relating to public order and to provide certain statutory offences
relating to public order in lieu thereof”. The Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994
partially achieves its objectives by abolishing certain common law offences such as riot
(Section 14(4)), rout and unlawful assembly (Section 15(6)), and affray (Section 16(5)) by
replacing these old offences with statutory equivalents under Sections 14(1), Section 15(1)
and Section 16(1) respectively. These latter offences are rarely prosecuted in the criminal
courts but the much lesser offences brought in under Section 4 (public intoxication),
Section 5 (disorderly conduct in a public place), and Section 6 (threatening, abusive or
insulting behaviour in a public place) feature in the District Court with great regularity.
While Section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 provides a statutory
offence for making threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour in a public place,
the Section makes no reference to the pre-existing common law offence of breach of the
peace (Blackstone 1773:142). While the stated intention within the Criminal Justice
(Public Order) Act 1994 was said to abolish certain common law offences and this was
expressly provided for in respect of certain offences, the offence of breach of the peace
survives as a distinct common law offence 155 (Expert Group 2004:46) alongside Section 6
which is the statutoryexpression of the offence. 156
Another aspect to consider when dealing with the issue of subsequent statutory
formulations of what has previouslybeen considered a common lawoffence, rule of lawor
jurisdiction, is the application of Section 14 of the Interpretation Act 1937 which
provided: 157
155 In A.G. –v – Cunningham (1932) I.R. 28, the Court of Criminal Appeal held that in order to constitute a breach of the peace an act must be such as to cause reasonable alarm and
apprehension to members of the public (Quinn 1999:321). Furthermore the same court held that breach of the peace could be tried as an indictable offence, at common law. It is
observedthat aprosecution for breach of the peace under Section 6 of the Public Order Act 1994 can onlybe triedsummarily.
156 There is one distinct point of difference where the common lawoffence mayalso be committed in a private as well as a public place. The commission of such offence in a private
place had never been authoritativelydecided in the Irish Courts. In the English Courts in McConnell – v - Chief Constable of Greater Manchester (1990) 1ALL ER.423 Purchas LJ
statedthat “apurelydomestic dispute wouldrarelyamount to abreach of the peace. But, in exceptional circumstances, it might verywell do so”.
157 RepealedbyInterpretation Act 2005 (operative from1st January2006)
358