public nuisance and outraging public decency - Law Commission

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Sentencing 6.16 As with public nuisance, 11 any statutory restatement of the offence of outraging public decency should be accompanied by a reconsideration of the appropriate powers of sentencing. 11 Para 6.10. 72
PART 7 PROVISIONAL PROPOSALS AND QUESTIONS FOR CONSULTATION Public nuisance 7.1 We provisionally propose that the offence of public nuisance be retained, and that its conduct element should remain in its present form as laid down in Rimmington. (Paragraph 4.27) 7.2 We provisionally propose that public nuisance should be found proved only when D is shown to have acted in the relevant respect intentionally or recklessly with regard to the creation of a public nuisance. That is, D must be shown to have intended to create, or realised that he or she might generate, what ordinary people would regard as a public nuisance. (Paragraph 5.44) 7.3 We provisionally propose: (1) to restate the offence in statutory form, while altering the fault element as proposed above; 1 (2) for this purpose, to explore definitions alternative to that given in Archbold. 7.4 Consultees are asked for their views on how the offence of public nuisance should best be defined by statute to give effect to the above proposal. (Paragraphs 6.8 and 6.9) Outraging public decency 7.5 We provisionally propose that the offence of outraging public decency be retained, and that its conduct element should remain in its present form as laid down in Hamilton. (Paragraph 4.43) 7.6 We provisionally propose that outraging public decency should be found proved only when D is shown to have acted in the relevant respect intentionally or recklessly with regard to the outraging of public decency. That is, D must be shown to have intended to generate, or realised that he or she might generate, outrage, shock or disgust in ordinary people. (Paragraph 5.52) 7.7 We provisionally propose: (1) to restate the offence in statutory form, while altering the fault element as proposed above; 2 (2) for this purpose, to use a definition on the lines suggested in paragraph 6.13 above; 1 At para 7.2. 2 Para 7.6. 73
Page 1:
The Law Commission Consultation Pap
Page 4 and 5:
CODE OF PRACTICE ON CONSULTATION T
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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?