• 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 ...

    and torture of prisoners that where being held in the Iraqi prison of Abu Ghraib which was now known as the Baghdad correctional facility. This was run by personnel o f the 372nd military police company, CIA officers and contractors which had been involved within the occupation of Iraq.

  2. The Law Relating to Negotiable Instruments

    the amount of the check and transfers those funds to its own certified check punt. In effect, the bank is agreeing in advance to accept that check when it is presented for payment and to make payment from those funds reserved in the certified check account.

  1. Using actual situations describe the elements of actus

    verdict, although in practice a defendant will not be retried more than once. The rules of the finality of a judgment in civil cases have a similar effect. Forgery, in criminal law, fraudulently altering a written document or seal with the intent of injuring the interests of another person or of fraudulently obtaining governmental revenue.

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

    > If the defendant refuses to plead at all, a special trial is held at which a jury decides whether he is unwilling to do so (in which case a plea of not guilty is entered on his behalf and the trial goes ahead)

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