Public Order Offences (1 Viewer)

[pete]

Has anyone got information on what specific public order offences people have been arrested and/or charged under this week?

ta

 

[pete]

Anyone?

I'm curious.

 

[yojimbo]

A guy I know says he was arrested and
"charged in court the next morning under Section 6 of the Public Order Act. I have been charged with engaging in abusive or threatening behaviour or language with the intent to cause violence."

 

[pete]

The ICCL had this to say on Section 6 of the Public Order act back in 1993:

SECTION 6 & 7

These Sections are further frontal assaults on the freedom of expression, whether by word, gesture, sign, writing or visible representation in public. The sanction of 6 months imprisonment not only exceeds the Law Revision Commission's recommendation but is also excessive in view of the many occasions which can give rise to the use of colourful language between people in public; heated exchanges in traffic, badinage at sporting events, political heckling etc. It is indeed necessary to have legal recourse and sanction for the use of intemperate language and conduct between persons publicly. However the sanction should be a monetary penalty only as the common law power a Court has of binding persons over upon conditions is frequently the most appropriate answer to these complaints.

The sanction of 6 months imprisonment is out of proportion to the wrong done and disproportionate to other offences i.e. possession of cannabis (£300 fine for first offence), non-display of tax disc (£200 fine). The form of offence contemplated in section 6 and section 7 is wide open to discriminatory censorship of material and language which is morally, politically or socially and aesthetically unacceptable to the majority. Unfortunately, it is the Gardai who are in charge of making fine distinctions and moral, political and social judgements in arbitrating, and executing this law. To cite recent examples, the display of placard photographs of foetus by pro-life campaigners could be deemed to be an obscene representation although problematic morally, politically and aesthetically. Similarly, the proffering for sale of "The Satanic Verses", by Salman Rushdie certainly could be viewed as being insulting to the Muslim minority and likely to provoke a breach of the peace. The basic tenets of an open liberal society are exhorted by the widest possible latitude. The right to protest and express deeply unpopular views in a dramatic way is offended by Section 7

And in 1997 they issued this statement:

Press Statement: 11th June 1997

ICCL BACKS PROTEST OVER ELECTION ARREST

The ICCL supports the protest at the use of the Public Order Act, 1994, in the case of Dr. Peadar O'Grady, general election candidate for the Socialist Workers Party in the Dublin South East constituency. On the afternoon of Saturday 17 May, Dr. O'Grady was undertaking what would be considered by most to be legitimate election campaigning - addressing passers-by on election issues from a SWP stall outside the Swan Centre, Rathmines. Two passing gardai arrested him under the terms of the Public Order Act for "breach of the peace."
When the Public Order Act was introduced the then Government claimed it was needed to deal with violent or threatening behaviour by drunken gangs. However, it has been widely used on individuals engaged in political and protest activity. It has been used against people protesting against water charges, participants in Republican commemorations, against people protesting on the issue of the US trade embargo of Cuba during the visit of President Clinton to Dublin in November 1995 and now this instance. The ICCL is concerned that the Public Order Act is being used in an arbitrary fashion as a 'catch-all' provision, to be used against people expressing a political point in a public place. The threat to basic democratic principles posed by such a scenario cannot be underestimated.

In 1993-94, the ICCL opposed the introduction of the Public Order Act. Our main concerns at that time were that the legislation contained provisions that restricted the citizens' rights of free expression, assembly and movement. The ICCL was also alarmed at the vagueness of some of the offences and the extremely wide powers being given to the gardai to enforce public order provisions. It seems that 3 years on many of those reservations were well founded.

The Criminal Justice (Public Order) Bill (as it was then) was brought to the attention of the UN Human Rights Committee in 1993 where UN Ambassador for Cyprus and former judge, Mr. Andrea Mavrommatis, said the Bill would give the gardai "more powers than that found in the average European country". For all of the talk of 'zero tolerance' and calls for increased garda powers, it should be noted that the gardai already have very wide powers of discretion in the areas of public expression, freedom of movement and assembly. The ICCL is opposed to the use of this legislation to curb freedom of speech and political protest and calls for the Government to ensure that it is not used in this way in future.

 

[egg_]

Awww Pete. First this:
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2001/1017/index.htm#1
and now you and your public order stuff. My morning has got off to a bad start