• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Outraging public decency.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

OUTRAGING PUBLIC DECENCY As a common law misdemeanour, the offence of outraging public decency is triable only on indictment and is punishable with imprisonment fixed for a period at the discretion of the judge. The act must be done in a place where at least two members of the public might see it. It is evident that Jane Horroll urinated in front of over 80 people at the theatre, this would mean that she has committed an act outraging public decency and it is irrelevant that the members of the audience were not outraged by this action. In Lunderbech [1991] the defendant masturbated in a children's playground and was seen by only two police officers who did not testify that they were outraged, the court said that ...read more.

Middle

In Knuller v DPP (1973) the majority of the House of Lords held orbiter, that outraging public decency was a common law offence, examples of which are indecent exposure, acts of sexual indecency in public and mounting an indecent exhibition as the courts decided in Cruden (1809), Gibson (1990) and Mayling (1963). A modern case in which the existence of the offence had previously been recognised by the Court of Criminal Appeal in is Mayling (1963). Any doubt as to the existence of the offence was removed by the decision of the Court of Appeal in 1991 in Gibsons (1990) where the court agreed with the majority of the House of Lords in Knuller. ...read more.

Conclusion

It is not necessary for the prosecution also to prove that the accused had an intention to outrage public decency or that he was subjectly reckless (or indeed, that ha had any mens rea) as to the risk of such an outrage occurring. In other words the offence of outraging public decency is one of strict liability, as was followed in Gibson (1990). With all the facts of this case and the legal principles that have been used for this argument, it is evident that Jane Horroll did in fact commit an act outraging public decency even though the audience did not find this offensive. I would therefore wish that the House of Lords refuse this appeal on the grounds stated. This concludes my submission, My Lord. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Law essays

  1. Explain the need for discipline in at least two public services. Analyse the role ...

    PACE: this is basically a book which explains al the codes of practice, this is updated regularly and isn't only available to members of the police force but also the general public as it can be purchased in most bookstores.

  2. What is an indictable offence and how is it brought to trial?

    in R v Grobbelaar & others (1997 unreported), where three footballers and a businessman were acquitted of conspiracy to defraud by "fixing" football matches, McCullough J refused applications for costs by two of the defendants. John Fashanu, he said, had brought suspicion on himself by receiving £1/4m from abroad, paying

  1. The Law Relating to Negotiable Instruments

    Drawer's Request for Certification: The legal liability of the drawer varies on the basis of whether the certification is requested by the drawer or the holder. The drawer who obtains certification remains secondarily liable on the instrument if for some reason the certifying bank cannot or does not honor the check when it is presented for payment.

  2. Using actual situations describe the elements of actus

    A reprieve is usually granted by the sovereign or chief executive; in some cases it may be granted by the court that tried the offender. The purpose of the reprieve is generally to allow an investigation into the legality of the conviction or into alleged newly discovered evidence in favour of the convicted person.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work