public nuisance and outraging public decency - Law Commission

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SPECIFIC IMPACT TESTS Legal Aid: It is anticipated that the proposals have the potential to generate a reduction in prosecutions, balanced by a slight increase in civil or administrative procedures and a small spike in appeals. This would result in a lightening of the burden of criminal legal aid, with a possible increase in the burden of civil legal aid. This increase is expected to be minimal or non-existent. Race equality: Both the proposals and the existing offences appear to be ethnically neutral. Both offences concern the likely effect of certain activities on the public: activities with an effect on a special public, such as a local or ethnic community, are included. Disability equality: The proposals have a positive impact, as by requiring a more conscious degree of intention they make it less likely that the offences will be committed inadvertently by people with cognitive disabilities. Gender equality: Both the proposals and the existing offences appear to be neutral on gender as such. We have considered whether the existing offence of outraging public decency (and therefore any new offence with the same conduct element) may be discriminatory as to sexual orientation, for example whether activities by particular groups are more likely to cause public outrage. We believe that this risk is minimised by the requirement that the act must be such as to cause outrage to a reasonable person. Human rights: The proposals have a positive human rights impact, as the offences will provide clearer guidance on the types of behaviour to be avoided. This meets the doubts that have been expressed, e.g. by the criminal law textbook Smith and Hogan, on whether the offence of outraging public decency in particular is certain enough to meet the requirements of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 90
Specific Impact Tests: Checklist Use the table below to demonstrate how broadly you have considered the potential impacts of your policy options. Ensure that the results of any tests that impact on the cost-benefit analysis are contained within the main evidence base; other results may be annexed. Results annexed? Type of testing undertaken Results in Evidence Base? Competition Assessment No No Small Firms Impact Test No No Legal Aid Yes No Sustainable Development No No Carbon Assessment No No 91 Other Environment No No Health Impact Assessment No No Race Equality Yes No Disability Equality Yes No Gender Equality Yes No Human Rights Yes No Rural Proofing No No
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 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
show all

public nuisance and outraging public decency - Law Commission

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?