Public Order Offence: Hammond v DPP

In Hammond v. DPP the Divisional Court held, dismissing the appeal, it was accepted that Arts 9 and 10 of the Convention, and the Convention generally, did not, as such, provide a defence to an information laid under s.5 of the 1986 Act, but human rights considerations had to be brought into play in...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Criminal law review 2004-10, p.851
Main Authors: Tausz, Dilys, Ashworth, Andrew
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Court decisions
Courts of appeals
Freedom of religion
Human rights
Judicial discretion
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In Hammond v. DPP the Divisional Court held, dismissing the appeal, it was accepted that Arts 9 and 10 of the Convention, and the Convention generally, did not, as such, provide a defence to an information laid under s.5 of the 1986 Act, but human rights considerations had to be brought into play in an appropriate way when the offence created by the section was looked at and when the facts as found by the justices were applied to it. The justices had to have Art.10 and its terms very much in mind. First, when determining whether a particular set of facts and circumstances should give rise to a finding that a sign of that kind displayed by the defendant was insulting and, secondly, when considering whether the defendant could bring himself within the statutory defence in s.5(3)(c) by proving that his conduct was reasonable. In the present case, the justices had carried out that exercise and were entitled to find that the offence had been established. A commentary on the case is included.
ISSN:0011-135X