Articles

Contact

Links

Case Law

Security

DPP v Fidler
[1992] 1 WLR 91, 94 Cr App Rep 286, 156 JP 257, [1992] Crim LR 62

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE - PUBLIC ORDER – OFFENSIVE CONDUCT CONDUCIVE TO BREACHES OF PEACE – THREATENING, ABUSIVE OR INSULTING WORDS OR BEHAVIOUR – DEFENDANTS ATTENDING ABORTION CLINIC AT TIME OF PROTEST – DEFENDANTS JOINING ANTI-ABORTION GROUP – WHETHER EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS’ MEMBERSHIP OF GROUP RENDERING FINDING OF NO CASE TO ANSWER UNSUSTAINABLE – PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986, S 5(1)– CONSPIRACY – PUBLIC MISCHIEF – DEFENDANT SEEKING TO COMPEL PERSONS NOT TO UNDERTAKE LAWFUL ACTIVITY – WHETHER WATCHING AND BESETTING WITH AIM

The defendants were participating in a protest at a licensed medical clinic which carried out abortions. An opposing group was also present at the clinic. The defendants were arrested after they ignored police instructions to return to their group and asserted their rights to walk where they chose and speak to whom they chose.

The defendants were charged, first, under ss 5(1)(a) and 6 of the Public Order Act 1986, with having used threatening, abusive and insulting words and behaviour or disorderly behaviour contrary to the Act. The second charge was that, contrary to s 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, the defendants, with a view to preventing a person from doing an act which they had a legal right to do, wrongfully and without legal authority, watched and beset the premises of the clinic.

The charges were both dismissed at trial on the basis that there was no case to answer. The original case stated did not suggest that the defendants were members of the anti-abortion group, only that they supported it. The DPP applied successfully to the court to admit further facts, namely that the defendants were part of the ant-abortion protest group, and that the group were shouting slogans and trying to display models, photographs and placards to persons attending the clinic.

The DPP appealed by way of case stated, on the basis that following the application to admit further facts, the justices’ conclusions with regard to the 1986 Act could not stand, and secondly, that the prosecution did not have to prove compulsion under s 7 of the 1875 Act as amended, but rather watching and besetting ‘with a view to’ compulsion.

Held

(1) The DPP’s appeal with respect to the 1986 Act would be allowed. In the face of the additional findings as to the defendants being part of the group, using words and behaviour which would support a charge under s 5 of the 1986 Act, the conclusion that there was no case to answer could not stand.

(2) On its true construction, s 7 of the 1875 Act required ‘compulsion’ on the part of the defendant, not merely watching and besetting ‘with a view to’ compulsion. In the instant case, there was no evidence that anyone at the clinic was either prevented, or likely to be prevented, or was intended to be prevented from performing or undergoing an abortion in the strict sense of being rendered unable to do so. The evident purpose of the demonstrators’ behaviour was to embarrass and shock and shame those concerned into abstaining from abortion. Physical force was neither used nor threatened. Accordingly, the DPP’s appeal in respect of s 7 of the 1875 Act would be dismissed.