Public Order Act 1986 Essay

and inconvenience. In particular, it covers behaviour which falls short of violence or the threat of violence. For instance, an elderly street preacher name Mr Hammond was convicted under section 5 for displaying a sign which says “homosexual conduct was immoral ”. Some passers-by became angry with the writing and tried to remove the sign, others threw water and dirt at him Mr Hammod. The police came and arrested him, and he was prosecuted, convicted, and fined £300 plus £305 court costs. The high court upheld the conviction saying magistrates were entitled to find the sign “insulting” to homosexuals. No one in the crowd was charged. This injustice meted out as a result of the vagueness of section 5 of the public order act 1986. This led …show more content…
It was a victory and relief achieved by the reform of section 5 campaign to replace it with crime and courts act 2013, section 57 which has provided us with clearer and equivocal definition of the offence contained in the public order act 1986. The will also allow for the respect of human right, rule of law and constitutional convention. There would be compactibility with section 57 and that of human right. A campaign was carried out in the United Kingdom . The slogan for the campaign was, ‘Reform Section 5: Feel Free to insult Me’ its aim was to generate a ground for communication on legislation. The campaign stated that, the law is to create a measures in place to protect individuals against discrimination, incitement and violence. It was against placing legal control on ‘trivial’ remarks would be out of control, and stamping on the freedom of expression, which is our sole right in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act. On 10th of July 2011, the Home Office responded to the campaign with public consultation asking for an open dialogue on whether or not section 5 should be looked into and amended in taking away the word ‘insulting’ or