Articles

Contact

Links

Case Law

Security

Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions
163 JP 789, [1999] Crim LR 998, 7 BHRC 375
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
SEDLEY LJ, COLLINS J
23 JULY 1999

Criminal law – Breach of peace – Arrest – Appellant preaching on steps of cathedral – Crowd of people subsequently gathering, some of whom showing hostility towards appellant – Whether reasonable for police officer to believe appellant about to cause breach of peace – Police Act 1996, s.89(2)

Notes

This important case upholds the right to freedom of expression to say what you like in public, so long as you are not provoking violence. The three claaimants were preaching on the steps of Wakefield cathedral, and a crowd of people gathered around them, with some shouting abuse. A police officer told them to stop preaching or they would be arrested for breach of the peace and when they refused he arrested them. The judge famously stated:

"Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having. What Speakers’ Corner (where the law applies as fully as anywhere else) demonstrates is the tolerance which is both extended by the law to opinion of every kind and expected by the law in the conduct of those who disagree, even strongly, with what they hear."

The judge stated that in deciding whether to arrest for breach of the peace, the person responsible for causing or provoking violence should be arrested. If other people use violence as a result of what a preacher shouts from the steps of Wakefield cathedral, then it is they rather than the preacher who are liable for causing a breach of the peace.

The judge explicitly considered the case from the point of view of the Human Rights Act 1998, which encorporates the European Convention on Human Rights in to domestic law, and makes it unlawful for public bodies, including courts, to act incompatibly with articles of the convention. The right to freedom and liberty under Article 5 of the convention may be restricted by the police in order, amongst other things, to maintain public order and to protect the rights of others. However any such restriction must be proportionate to the aim which is being sought. Applying this to the facts of the case, the judge said that so long as the claimant's words had not provoked the use of violence, then any restriction on her right to freely express herelf were disproportionate to the aim of maintaining public order.

This case is extremely useful on demos or stalls where the police claim that what you are saying or what is written on your leaflet is causing offence. This case establishes that the right to free speech, enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, includes the right to be offensive.

Although the judge was dealing with a case on breach of the peace, he stated that in future the common law will have to develop consistently with articles of the convention, and we are of the opinion that his comments can be used in all cases involving freedom of expression. This case does seem at odds with earlier decisions of the higher courts with regard to freedom of expression eg DPP v Clarke, DPP v Fidler, where, for example, placards showing aborted foetuses were deemed to be a Section 5 offence. It will be interesting to see how future cases on Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 are considered in the light of the judge's remarks and the need to consider articles of the convention.