Threatening or abusive behaviour
Baig v Harvie
Baig v Harvie[1] raises the question whether it was necessary to create a crime of threatening or abusive behavior at all and it how the crime operates in relation to breach of the peace; and or the appropriateness of the defense used by the accused
A. THE FACTS
Mirza Baig appealed his conviction for threatening and abusive behaviour towards two parking attendants.The Incident took place on31 January 2014.The facts where Mirza accompanied by his brother, had an encounter with two parking attendants The Crown witnesses, Fraser Brown and Peter McNicol who had issued a penalty charge notice in respect of the appellant's car.The encounter was filmed and audio-recorded by a body camera worn …show more content…
From the pattern of escalating behaviour it is clear that Mr Biag did not behave in a reasonable manner howvever the defnce still arguged Miss Mitchell on behalf of the appellant submitted that where an altercation was purely verbal They also cited Harris v HMA advocate[8] Which is the grounds that the appellant was appealing on the argument would entail that any utterance made privately to another individual which was, objectively speaking, disturbing or alarming would be sufficient to constitute the crime”They even questioned the dictionary definations of the words “Fear” and “alarm” thus furthering the confusion.Also the fact he followed the parking attendinndts can also be compared to Harvey v HMA[9] The accused took exception and followed the complainer through streets in Girvan shouting abuse at him.The elemts of the act can be found in In Urquhart v HMA 2015 SLT 853, Lady Clark of Calton indicated that the offence had “three distinct …show more content…
Breach of the peace
Section 38 of the Act was desgined I itself to combat the amount of offences that would fall under Breach of the peace as Breach of the Peace is:— a crime at common law which was defined in Smith v Donnelly 2001 SLT 1007, Lord Coulsfield finally stated that, in the view of the High Court, it is “clear that what is required to constitute the crime is conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community”[12]
In This case Mr Baig could fall under the actus reus and mens rea of the crime did conduct himself in a disorderly manner and his actions could have caused alarm to ordinary people by shouting to the public howver again they could rely on the defence Kinnaird v Higson 2001 SCCR 427[13] is an example of a case in which swearing at a police officer and attempting to walk away twice when
told to remain was held not to constitute a breach of the peace. Also the case of Smith v Paterson“severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people” test and the “threatening serious disturbance to the community test”. Satisfying one or the other of these is not sufficient .Could Mr Baigs actions be shown to cause serious damage with the public elemnt you have the case of Bowes v McGowan 2010 JC 297[14] held that travelling in a taxi along public roads met the necessary test.Is this screathing the test a little far or do the judges determine the facts on a case by case
Baig v Harvie
Baig v Harvie[1] raises the question whether it was necessary to create a crime of threatening or abusive behavior at all and it how the crime operates in relation to breach of the peace; and or the appropriateness of the defense used by the accused
A. THE FACTS
Mirza Baig appealed his conviction for threatening and abusive behaviour towards two parking attendants.The Incident took place on31 January 2014.The facts where Mirza accompanied by his brother, had an encounter with two parking attendants The Crown witnesses, Fraser Brown and Peter McNicol who had issued a penalty charge notice in respect of the appellant's car.The encounter was filmed and audio-recorded by a body camera worn …show more content…
From the pattern of escalating behaviour it is clear that Mr Biag did not behave in a reasonable manner howvever the defnce still arguged Miss Mitchell on behalf of the appellant submitted that where an altercation was purely verbal They also cited Harris v HMA advocate[8] Which is the grounds that the appellant was appealing on the argument would entail that any utterance made privately to another individual which was, objectively speaking, disturbing or alarming would be sufficient to constitute the crime”They even questioned the dictionary definations of the words “Fear” and “alarm” thus furthering the confusion.Also the fact he followed the parking attendinndts can also be compared to Harvey v HMA[9] The accused took exception and followed the complainer through streets in Girvan shouting abuse at him.The elemts of the act can be found in In Urquhart v HMA 2015 SLT 853, Lady Clark of Calton indicated that the offence had “three distinct …show more content…
Breach of the peace
Section 38 of the Act was desgined I itself to combat the amount of offences that would fall under Breach of the peace as Breach of the Peace is:— a crime at common law which was defined in Smith v Donnelly 2001 SLT 1007, Lord Coulsfield finally stated that, in the view of the High Court, it is “clear that what is required to constitute the crime is conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community”[12]
In This case Mr Baig could fall under the actus reus and mens rea of the crime did conduct himself in a disorderly manner and his actions could have caused alarm to ordinary people by shouting to the public howver again they could rely on the defence Kinnaird v Higson 2001 SCCR 427[13] is an example of a case in which swearing at a police officer and attempting to walk away twice when
told to remain was held not to constitute a breach of the peace. Also the case of Smith v Paterson“severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people” test and the “threatening serious disturbance to the community test”. Satisfying one or the other of these is not sufficient .Could Mr Baigs actions be shown to cause serious damage with the public elemnt you have the case of Bowes v McGowan 2010 JC 297[14] held that travelling in a taxi along public roads met the necessary test.Is this screathing the test a little far or do the judges determine the facts on a case by case