Do we need a contempt of the police law

[jake-the-peg]

A lot of silly talk going on in the media about the judge who over-ruled a charge against someone who swore at the police.

He rightly pointed out that the policemen were unlikely to have suffered distress from hearing bad language which was the pupose of the legislation.

All the usual suspects came out with the "thin end of the wedge" "respect for authority" arguments which are of course absolutely not the point.

You can be in a lot of trouble for contempt of cout but there is no contempt for the police law and it seems that the police may have been trying to create such a law by using this rather silly legislation.

So would the proper thing to do to be to introduce contempt of the police law or would that be a step too far towards an authoritarian police state?

[rojash]

Kind of a stretch in your reasoning there JTP. I rather think that most judges have something other than swearing in mind when they refer to contempt of court.

[rojash]

...sorry, just had another thought: what about a "Contempt of the People Who Pay You" law, to cover those occasions when the police overstep the bounds?

[dianahoohar]

No, we don't need a 'Contempt of the Police Law' - just a bit of old fashioned respect would do.

[naomi24]

Agree with dianahoohar.

[exdc]

Currently, section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says that “a person is guilty of an offence if he … uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour … within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby

The National Secular Society, faith groups and civil liberties groups as well as the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR), have long argued that the word “insulting” should be removed from section 5 of the Public Order Act on the grounds that it criminalises free speech


http://www.secularism.org.uk/132454.html

[jake-the-peg]

exactly exdc

I don't think our police are so frail that they'll be caused much distress by a bit of bad language do you?

It seems the police want to be treated with respect and are trying to use a bad law to enforce it.

Stands to reason that the answer should be to bring in a law to achieve what is wanted rather than try and patch up a bad system

[pa___ul3]

I think that may take the issue of, let's call it police arrogance, to a whole new level. Many already have a vastly inflated sense of self-importance that goes far further than the level of respect they actually deserve and such a law would simply give them far more ammunition.
I'm not saying all police are like this at all, but too many are.

[venator]

I think I may have heard a policeman swear once ...

What we are talking about is aggressive swearing, intended to take away the authority of the policeman, or to incite him / her to overstep the police guidelines.

[youngmafbog]

In two minds on this one.

On one hand there needs to be a level of respect for the Police and no one should be intimidated in an agressive and insulting manner no matter what your job is.

On the otehr hand I know what some Rozzers can be like and giving them a single special law could easily be abused by them.

[elgreco]

No new law is required. As stated, the offence is commited under the Public Order Act. The Police are protected by the same laws as the population. Why do people think that a policeofficer cannot be upset or distressed. Do people think that it is OK to eff and blind at a policeoffer but not at other members of the community. Legislaters obviously thought such a law was required. What gives a Judge the right to voice his opinion as to the rights or wrongs of the law. His job is to advise juries and pass sentences. If he/she does not agree with the laws of the land then perhaps they are in the wrong job.

[Old_Geezer]

I've seen the TV shows (or at least I saw a few before I decided they had started to bore) and I had expected to form the opinion of how difficult it was for the police and how well they handled situations. In fact my feelings were somewhat different. In the ones I saw they seemed happy to enforce their authority to such an extent the simple act of swearing, for example, proved to be an excuse to make an arrest. Admitting not at the first occasion but so what ?

I'm sure there are still folk who get excessively distressed at hearing words defined as swearing, but IMO that is a problem they have with their reaction. If they can live with it then fine. But one would hope one does not have wilting wallflowers in the force; and so for the police, swearing should be just ignored, and this would result in a greater respect for them and what they do. To do otherwise is for them to fail on the public service part of their duty, since the individual swearing is a member of the public, and probably feels their swearing is appropriate to the situation.

No' the last thing we need is more draconian laws for the irrelevant. Why should someone be forced to feel or think as the State requires ? Feeling or showing contempt is a personal decison not something to be arrested for.

[vulcan]

If the police ignored being sworn at, thus removing the shock value, it might help to reduce it.

[NOX]

We absolutely do not need that. Suppose you hold the decision of a police officer in contempt? They don't always get everything right because they are human, they frequently behave badly, abuse power and on occasion need to be told so. To give them a law where in effect if anyone vociferously disagrees with them they could be arrested and carted off is just plain stupid.

[pa___ul3]

el greco - "The Police are protected by the same laws as the population. Why do people think that a policeofficer cannot be upset or distressed. Do people think that it is OK to eff and blind at a police officer but not at other members of the community." If you swear at an average joe you're not going to get arrested. People think it's ok to swear at footballers and referees. Are you saying everyone should be arrested that dare utter a swear word in the direction of another person? If not, why should the police be treated differently?

[jackthehat]

Firstly, no we need no such law.
Secondly, Police Officers contribute (via Council Tax) to their 'own salaries'.
Thirdly, if Police Officers felt that they had the backing of the Senior Officers and the General Public....there would be no dark mutterings about requiring this sort of legislation.

[Messi_Ten]

He's lucky he never swore at PC Simon Harwood, he'd be dead by now.

[Paul22118]

On a recent late night visit to the West End of London to see a show, we were walking back to the car park and I saw a group of girls, pi$$ed out of their brains, confronting two smartly dressed police officers in their early twenties in full uniform. They were sceaming abuse with just about every swear word in the naughty book. I thought of this judge and wished he and his lady wife could have been 'beamed' down to stand next to me and explain that this was acceptable language in a public place.

[elgreco]

I think people are missing the point. When people swear at the police it is not done in a happy jovial manner. It is done in anger with underlying currents that may develop into violence. Have a pleasant stroll down ant city high street on a weekend at 11pm and have a look. If people can verbally abuse policeofficers with impunity then what chance has Mr or Mrs normal got. As I said, when the present Public Order Act was introduced to replace the 1936 Act, it was deemed correct to include Section 5 in its present form. I am not saying that new legislation is needed but I am saying that the law as it stands should be inforced.

[New Judge]

The difficulty with Section 5 (and with much of the rest of the Public Order Act) is it is highly subjective in two aspects: not only must what is actually done be considered by the Magistrates (Section 5 can only be dealt with in the Magistrates’ Court) but the court must also decide what effect the action has had on those in the vicinity.

Section 5 is routinely used to arrest people who swear at the police. But it is most unlikely that a couple of experienced police officers will normally suffer “harassment, alarm or distress” as a result of simply being sworn at by somebody they are dealing with. In DPP vs Orum in 1988 it was held:

“There must be a person within the sight or hearing of the suspect who is likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress by the conduct in question. A police officer may be such a person, but remember that this is a question of fact to be decided in each case by the magistrates. In determining this, the magistrates may take into account the familiarity which police officers have with the words and conduct typically seen in incidents of disorderly conduct.”

In deciding this “matter of fact” the magistrates will have heard all the circumstances in which the incident took place and ruled that the officers did suffer as a result. Mr Justice Bean, however, disagreed and allowed the appeal of the delightful Denzel Harvey. In his ruling Judge Bean suggested that neither the officers nor the group of youths nearby would have suffered harassment alarm or distress as a result of Mr Harvey’s rant full of expletives. He went on to say that such language is now so commonplace that nobody is much offended by it.

This leaves the police with a bit of a problem. If they should arrest somebody for swearing at them and nobody else nearby is likely to be effected (according to Judge Bean’s interpretation) the CPS are unlikely to authorise a charge as the likelihood of a conviction is now somewhat reduced. So it seems they must put up with vile scroats shouting and swearing at them as they are considered robust enough to take it. If this is to be the interpretation held by the CPS from now on then perhaps some new law specifically to protect police officers in the course of their duty should be introduced. I am certainly not in favour of suspected criminals being able to verbally abuse, shout and swear at officers when they go about their duty. I do not see anything remotely authoritarian about expecting people to behave themselves when they are being question by the police.