public nuisance and outraging public decency - Law Commission

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