public nuisance and outraging public decency - Law Commission

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CODE OF PRACTICE ON CONSULTATION THE SEVEN CONSULTATION CRITERIA Criterion 1: When to consult Formal consultation should take place at a stage when there is scope to influence the policy outcome. Criterion 2: Duration of consultation exercise Consultations should normally last for at least 12 weeks with consideration given to longer timescales where feasible and sensible Criterion 3: Clarity and scope of impact Consultation documents should be clear about the consultation process, what is being proposed, the scope to influence and the expected costs and benefits of the proposals. Criterion 4: Accessibility of consultation exercises Consultation exercises should be designed to be accessible to, and clearly targeted at, those people the exercise is intended to reach. Criterion 5: The burden of consultation Keeping the burden of consultation to a minimum is essential if consultations are to be effective and if consultees’ buy-in to the process is to be obtained. Criterion 6: Responsiveness of consultation exercises Consultation responses should be analysed carefully and clear feedback should be provided to participants following the consultation. Criterion 7: Capacity to consult Officials running consultations should seek guidance in how to run an effective consultation exercise and share what they have learned from the experience. CONSULTATION CO-ORDINATOR The Law Commission’s Consultation Co-ordinator is Phil Hodgson. You are invited to send comments to the Consultation Co-ordinator about the extent to which the criteria have been observed and any ways of improving the consultation process. Contact: Phil Hodgson, Consultation Co-ordinator, Law Commission, Steel House, 11 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9LJ – Email: phil.hodgson@lawcommission.gsi.gov.uk Full details of the Government’s Code of Practice on Consultation are available on the BIS website at http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/better-regulation/consultation-guidance.
THE LAW COMMISSION SIMPLIFICATION OF CRIMINAL LAW: PUBLIC NUISANCE AND OUTRAGING PUBLIC DECENCY CONTENTS PART 1: INTRODUCTION 1 The general aim of the simplification project 1.3 1 The current project: public nuisance and outraging public decency 1.11 2 PART 2: PUBLIC NUISANCE: EXISTING LAW AND PRACTICE 5 The issues in brief 2.1 5 The law in more detail 2.7 7 The act or omission 2.9 7 The effect 2.19 11 The fault element 2.36 16 Current practice 2.46 19 Alternatives to public nuisance 2.52 20 Environmental nuisance 2.53 20 Behavioural nuisance 2.59 23 Other countries 2.61 25 PART 3: OUTRAGING PUBLIC DECENCY: THE EXISTING LAW 28 Conduct element: the activities covered 3.2 28 Circumstance and consequence elements 3.16 34 Fault element 3.39 41 Other countries 3.43 42 Australia 3.43 42 Canada 3.44 43 New Zealand 3.46 44 PART 4: CRITICISMS AND PROPOSALS: THE CONDUCT ELEMENT 46 Public nuisance 4.1 46 Abolishing the offence 4.1 46 Reforming the conduct element 4.24 52 Outraging public decency 4.28 52 Abolishing the offence 4.28 52 Reforming the conduct element 4.37 54 Provisional proposal 4.42 55 v
Page 1: The Law Commission Consultation Pap
Page 6 and 7: PART 5: CRITICISMS AND PROPOSALS: T
Page 8 and 9: issues of public policy at stake ma
Page 10 and 11: (3) improve the clarity of the law
Page 12 and 13: 2.3 The legal effect of a public nu
Page 14 and 15: classification. 26 In that sense, p
Page 16 and 17: and Hogan appears to suggest. The f
Page 18 and 19: 2.22 One kind of public nuisance, a
Page 20 and 21: to say that the defendants’ condu
Page 22 and 23: done was reasonably required given
Page 24 and 25: esponsible for a nuisance caused by
Page 26 and 27: the Attorney General’s office tha
Page 28 and 29: (fb) artificial light emitted from
Page 30 and 31: (9) Sending items purporting to be
Page 32 and 33: (not believed, or was reckless, or
Page 34 and 35: PART 3 OUTRAGING PUBLIC DECENCY: TH
Page 36 and 37: … I think that the objections to
Page 38 and 39: 3.8 Knuller lists further instances
Page 40 and 41: 3.15 In Knuller, however, there was
Page 42 and 43: “which fills the onlooker with lo
Page 44 and 45: the act, the case illustrates a fur
Page 46 and 47: that the conventional wording, as u
Page 48 and 49: when the publisher is incapable for
Page 50 and 51: New Zealand 3.46 The Crimes Act 196
Page 52 and 53: PART 4 CRITICISMS AND PROPOSALS: TH
Page 54 and 55:
Rule of law 4.8 Lord Bingham devote
Page 56 and 57:
4.15 However, as we have seen, the
Page 58 and 59:
does not offend against those princ
Page 60 and 61:
Like other offences with an environ
Page 62 and 63:
4.43 We provisionally propose that
Page 64 and 65:
instated as the fault element in wh
Page 66 and 67:
5.13 We do not regard the differenc
Page 68 and 69:
whether or not they intended or rea
Page 70 and 71:
allowing the Attorney General to br
Page 72 and 73:
suitable for a regulatory approach;
Page 74 and 75:
importance, the jury can always fin
Page 76 and 77:
problematic. 5 There is force in Sp
Page 78 and 79:
Sentencing 6.16 As with public nuis
Page 80 and 81:
(3) to amend the Criminal Law Act 1
Page 82 and 83:
Department /Agency: Law Commission
Page 84 and 85:
Summary: Analysis & Evidence Policy
Page 86 and 87:
Evidence Base (for summary sheets)
Page 88 and 89:
The outlines of the offence were cl
Page 90 and 91:
this is uncommon: one water authori
Page 92 and 93:
other procedures are inadequate; an
Page 94 and 95:
Cost/benefit analysis summary Optio
Page 96 and 97:
SPECIFIC IMPACT TESTS Legal Aid: It
show all

public nuisance and outraging public decency - Law Commission

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?