• 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 ...

    Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped. ? Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them. ? Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture.

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

    to go home overnight) during their deliberations as well as during the earlier part of the trial. The jury's verdict (guilty or not guilty) must normally be unanimous, but if after two hours they are still unable to agree

  1. The Law Relating to Negotiable Instruments

    Since sufficient evidence of emotional distress and damage to their reputation was presented (for example, several criminal prosecutions against them for writing checks against insufficient funds), the Kendalls were able to recover for them. The court stated: "[It) was entirely foreseeable that the dist-:- of the Corporation's checks would reflect

  2. Using actual situations describe the elements of actus

    The first classification is treason and the third, covering all minor offences, is misdemeanour. The distinction between felonies and misdemeanours is artificial and corresponds roughly to that between grave offences and those less heinous in character. Formerly, a felony was any crime punishable by the criminal's forfeiture of any lands

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