Director of Public Prosecution v Orum [1989] 1 W.L.R. 88
Introduction
This case deals with the controversy of interpretation of section 5 and whether police officers can be included as people within the act. By assessing the judge’s decision on how it impacts various aspects of society, it enlightens how the relationship between the police and public is misconstrued.
Facts of the case
The defendant, Orum was in a confrontation with his girlfriend just after midnight. He was using abusive language whilst being under the influence of alcohol. Two police constable showed up and warned the defendant about his actions. The defendant did not comply and instead replied aggressively. The police constable then once again cautioned the defendant, who was now threatening the constable, did not adhere to the warning. He was arrested under section 5(1)(a) of the Public Order Act 1986. Whilst being arrested the …show more content…
Since there is no ground to assume an offence has taken place, the police had no power to arrest.
The Court also concluded that the arrest was lawful under the common law power within s.25 of the police and criminal evidence act 1984. The charge of assault since it satisfies the test of breach of peace within Reg v Howell. Since the defendant threatened to hit the police constable after he issued a warning, the police were in his right to execute the arrest.
By answering the questions raised by the prosecution, the Justices on this bench took a different approach to answering the questions. It was held that the case is returned to the magistrate courts but not to convict since the prosecution main intent according to Lord Glidewell, was to establish a
Introduction
This case deals with the controversy of interpretation of section 5 and whether police officers can be included as people within the act. By assessing the judge’s decision on how it impacts various aspects of society, it enlightens how the relationship between the police and public is misconstrued.
Facts of the case
The defendant, Orum was in a confrontation with his girlfriend just after midnight. He was using abusive language whilst being under the influence of alcohol. Two police constable showed up and warned the defendant about his actions. The defendant did not comply and instead replied aggressively. The police constable then once again cautioned the defendant, who was now threatening the constable, did not adhere to the warning. He was arrested under section 5(1)(a) of the Public Order Act 1986. Whilst being arrested the …show more content…
Since there is no ground to assume an offence has taken place, the police had no power to arrest.
The Court also concluded that the arrest was lawful under the common law power within s.25 of the police and criminal evidence act 1984. The charge of assault since it satisfies the test of breach of peace within Reg v Howell. Since the defendant threatened to hit the police constable after he issued a warning, the police were in his right to execute the arrest.
By answering the questions raised by the prosecution, the Justices on this bench took a different approach to answering the questions. It was held that the case is returned to the magistrate courts but not to convict since the prosecution main intent according to Lord Glidewell, was to establish a