Facts
The facts are Baig and his brother had an encounter with two parking attendants after being issued with a penalty charge notice. Baig and his brother had been confrontational, aggressive and verbally abusive towards the attendants. The Sheriff found inter alia Baig’s conduct would have been likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear and alarm; a contravention of s.38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (thereafter “the 2010 Act”). Baig’s behaviour caused the parking attendants to be fearful of, and alarmed by, his behaviour. Baig submitted that the findings with relation to his behaviour were insufficient to satisfy the objective test of causing fear an alarm, and appealed the decision which was subsequently refused. The opinion of Lady Paton in Paterson v Harvie was that “the accused’s behaviour was not, in the particular circumstances, reasonable” and the requirements of the test in s.38 of the …show more content…
This section criminalises threatening or abusive behaviour, where causing fear or alarm is intended or where the accused is reckless as to whether this is caused. The behaviour must be likely to cause a reasonable person fear or alarm and it need not be in public or involve, or be likely to cause a public disturbance unlike breach of the peace. The provision does not define what “threatening” or “abusive” is, and does not require for such behaviour to be towards the person hearing it. Case law has discussed whether s.38 requires the person on the receiving end of the threatening or abusive behaviour to be fearful or alarmed, or whether it is sufficient that the reasonable person would have been alarmed. Therefore it is courts job is to consider whether the theoretical ‘reasonable person’ would suffer fear or alarm as held in
The facts are Baig and his brother had an encounter with two parking attendants after being issued with a penalty charge notice. Baig and his brother had been confrontational, aggressive and verbally abusive towards the attendants. The Sheriff found inter alia Baig’s conduct would have been likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear and alarm; a contravention of s.38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (thereafter “the 2010 Act”). Baig’s behaviour caused the parking attendants to be fearful of, and alarmed by, his behaviour. Baig submitted that the findings with relation to his behaviour were insufficient to satisfy the objective test of causing fear an alarm, and appealed the decision which was subsequently refused. The opinion of Lady Paton in Paterson v Harvie was that “the accused’s behaviour was not, in the particular circumstances, reasonable” and the requirements of the test in s.38 of the …show more content…
This section criminalises threatening or abusive behaviour, where causing fear or alarm is intended or where the accused is reckless as to whether this is caused. The behaviour must be likely to cause a reasonable person fear or alarm and it need not be in public or involve, or be likely to cause a public disturbance unlike breach of the peace. The provision does not define what “threatening” or “abusive” is, and does not require for such behaviour to be towards the person hearing it. Case law has discussed whether s.38 requires the person on the receiving end of the threatening or abusive behaviour to be fearful or alarmed, or whether it is sufficient that the reasonable person would have been alarmed. Therefore it is courts job is to consider whether the theoretical ‘reasonable person’ would suffer fear or alarm as held in