Milne v Harrower
Milne v Harrower tackles the crime of threatening or abusive behaviour in s. 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. Within this section it is stated that a person has committed the crime if their behaviour “would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm” , as well as the accused “intends by the behaviour to cause fear or alarm or is reckless as to whether the behaviour would cause fear or alarm” . This definition was clarified in Smith v Donnelly , where it is stated he appellants behaviour had to be “severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community” .
The accused; Colin Milne, Amy Lilburn, Beverly Milne, appealed against their conviction …show more content…
It is likely to include circumstance where the accused gave no thought to the risk at all but clearly there was one.” A clear example of this within the case is the fact that a reasonable person would have acknowledged that masking their identity and following someone would have caused any reasonable person “fear or alarm.” In Paterson v Harvie a reasonable person was defined as “someone who is not of abnormal sensitivity.” Thus, the appellants did not consider the consequences of their actions. In Allan v Patterson it was established that someone’s behaviour is reckless if it has “occurred either in the face of obvious and material dangers which were or should have been observed, appreciated and guarded against, or in circumstances which showed a complete disregard for any potential danger.” The mens rea of the 2010 Act is the intention to cause fear or alarm or recklessness as to whether fear or alarm is caused by the particular behaviour , therefore the mens rea of the crime can be established because the accused neglected to consider the effect of their
Milne v Harrower tackles the crime of threatening or abusive behaviour in s. 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. Within this section it is stated that a person has committed the crime if their behaviour “would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm” , as well as the accused “intends by the behaviour to cause fear or alarm or is reckless as to whether the behaviour would cause fear or alarm” . This definition was clarified in Smith v Donnelly , where it is stated he appellants behaviour had to be “severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community” .
The accused; Colin Milne, Amy Lilburn, Beverly Milne, appealed against their conviction …show more content…
It is likely to include circumstance where the accused gave no thought to the risk at all but clearly there was one.” A clear example of this within the case is the fact that a reasonable person would have acknowledged that masking their identity and following someone would have caused any reasonable person “fear or alarm.” In Paterson v Harvie a reasonable person was defined as “someone who is not of abnormal sensitivity.” Thus, the appellants did not consider the consequences of their actions. In Allan v Patterson it was established that someone’s behaviour is reckless if it has “occurred either in the face of obvious and material dangers which were or should have been observed, appreciated and guarded against, or in circumstances which showed a complete disregard for any potential danger.” The mens rea of the 2010 Act is the intention to cause fear or alarm or recklessness as to whether fear or alarm is caused by the particular behaviour , therefore the mens rea of the crime can be established because the accused neglected to consider the effect of their