edit: He apparently is on Bail and charged under section 5 of Public Order Act 1986 according to sky. Therefore the offence is
'person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.'
Defences are:
'person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.'
Defences are:
- Section 18 to show the word is not racial hatred 'A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.'(18)
Section 18 of the act is relevant for defence of section 5 as it requires intent for ir to racial hatred. Therefore It can also be used to show the word was not 'threatening, abusive or insulting', as it is not racial hatred, in the context.
- Section 5/ 3(a):'That he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress'. The people offended are not exposed to the said word (which within the context is not threatening, abusive or insulting anyway)
- Section 5 (3) (c): 'That his conduct was reasonable'. Chanting yid army at a Tottenham football game is very reasonable. Also could give context such as anti semitic abuse etc
Last edited: