Does Anyone Understand The" Two People Rule" For An Outraging Public Decency Charge.

[legaleagle21]

Two people must be physically there and able to see the act but may not be aware of or upset by an act of gross indecency. if only one person sees it and reports it are passing cars possible witnesses even if it can be contested that they could not possibly see the act performed by the driver sat in his seat because the viewing angle would not be there.. and if a second witness was found would the prosecution have to prove he/she was genuinely present

[Atheist]

Oh dear, Legal. What have you been up to?!

[legaleagle21]

me, nothing.

[jno]

was a driver doing something improper? Witness generally means eyewitness, someone who has actually seen something with their own eyes. If people in other cars have seen something, they're witnesses; if they haven't, they aren't.

Generally, the examination of witnesses would start with who are you, where were you at 2pm on the 3rd of October, can you tell the court what you saw ... but the defence may wish to challenge this in cross-examination if there's any doubt about it.

[legaleagle21]

this law s different , the requirement is that two or more people who must be present and were capable to see the offence committed but not actually have to see it.i was just wondering about people in passing cars. as i know they cant see into the car as they would need to be sitting on the roof. and if no other foot witnesses were around

[Chinajan]

This would seem to clarify [but is from 2006]:

https://gcnchambers.co.uk/appeal-conviction-clarifies-offence-act-outraging-public-decency/

[legaleagle21]

that is between two consenting adults. what about the car question. if the prosecution tried to use that would they be on sticky ground

[jno]

according to that, one witness must be present but doesn't have to have actually seen the act (eg with his back turned, I suppose), though the other does. I'm not sure someone in a passing car would be "present" in any useful sense but I suppose a court might rule that way. But if they were in fact not in a position to see the act, because it happened out of sight below the window or something, then they're not.

Anyway, that's Lord Chief Justice jno's ruling. Other judges are available.

[New Judge]

Yes, the two people have to be present and be capable of seeing it, though they do not actually have to see it or be outraged by it. So...

//...are passing cars possible witnesses even if it can be contested that they could not possibly see the act.//

The cars aren't but the people in them might be! It would be for the court to decide whether they counted as being "present" and whether they were capable of seeing it.

//...and if a second witness was found would the prosecution have to prove he/she was genuinely present//

Yes. It is a crucial element of the offence.

[legaleagle21]

i would have thought that anybody who was in a passing car and the police used them as a witness , then the defendant would have the right to dispute the possibility of them being capable of seeing anything. certainly not the driver as they would have passed in the same direction

[New Judge]

//...then the defendant would have the right to dispute the possibility of them being capable of seeing anything.//

He would. He would test their evidence by cross-examination. It would be for the jury (or Magistrates) to decide on the strength of that evidence.

[legaleagle21]

so i take it that the people in the passing cars would be crucial too and that they were seated on the left hand side and that they passed the scene at the same time as the pedestrian(accuser)but they would have had to be contacted by police if seen by cctv. i take it cctv would not count as the second person simply because it is not a person

[jno]

NJ, the judgment ChinaJan linked to says "two or more members of the public, at least one of whom must witness the act" (unless done to alarm or distress the public)

[Old_Geezer]

The law gets stranger the more one is told. So one can be a witness even if they haven't witnessed anything. And public decency can be outraged even if no member of the public has been outraged. Hmmm...

[jno]

OG, one can be a witness without seeing anything but if the link is correct the second witness does have to see it. I imagine the presence of the other witness is just to prove that it really was "in public".

legaleagle, the case linked to involved CCTV, but the witnessing had to be "live"; watching a recording didn't count. However, if they wanted to use the CCTV to trace possible witnesses, that ought to be allowable - that's basically what CCTV is for.

[Peter Pedant]

I think you have confused
A and B didnt do it and what do they have to prove to get off it
and
A and B did do it and can a good lawyer get them off

I dont have much cavill with being present and not necessarily outraged as the test is then objective ( was it outrageous?) rather than did the witnesses feel funny abart it?

I suppose the real lesson is - dont go dogging or it may bite you in the bum !

[legaleagle21]

i would have thought that the first step is to see if the charge is valid and the requirements are met if not then there can be no case to answer

[Spicerack]

Does that mean that one person reporting, say, a flasher, would be wasting their time without another witness (or a confession)

[barry1010]

Is this a real case or a study question?

[barry1010]

Spicerack, flashing is a different offence altogether - indecent exposure

[Peter Pedant]

// he first step is to see if the charge is valid and the requirements are met if not then there can be no case to answer//

as I previously said
I think you have confused
1.A and B didnt do it and what do they have to prove to get off it
and
2.A and B did do it and can a good lawyer get them off

and seeing whether there is such a charge ( er there is by the way - short answer yes) looks like 2 to me
and yes I regret but no refs this DOES occur

two lawyers were harassing each other ( hahahaha) and one got arrested but latterly pointed out there was no powers of arrest wivvart warrant under the harassment act
( no such act - prevention of .... blah blah blah)
the case went on by the way

and another ( I am shocked says jusge ) was indicted under repeated sections of the Theft act and not the correct Fraud act 2006. I was shocked too

but it happens so infrequently that it gets into the papers