header-logo header-logo

29 February 2008
Issue: 7310 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

CRIMINAL LAW

S v DPP [2008] All ER (D) 119 (Feb)

The case arose out of offensive material posted on the internet. The complainant was unaware of its existence until it was drawn to his attention some five months later by a police officer.

HELD The offence under the Public Order Act 1986, s 4A(1)(b) (intentionally displaying a visible representation which causes harassment, alarm or distress) may be established even where the harassment, alarm or distress crystallises only at the date several months after the act complained of. Moreover, it could not be said that the police had broken that chain of causation five months later by showing the complainant the photograph.
 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

HFW—Nelson Wang

HFW—Nelson Wang

HFW strengthens global insurance practice and Greater China offering with London Partner hire

Burges Salmon—David McEwing

Burges Salmon—David McEwing

Burges Salmon boosts Energy and Utilities practice with appointment of David McEwing

Browne Jacobson—Alexander Studholme

Browne Jacobson—Alexander Studholme

Browne Jacobson adds international construction arbitration partner in London push

NEWS
Law firm trainees are choosing US firms over their UK comparators, according to Chambers’ annual report on UK trainee satisfaction
A former senior judge has warned peers against scrapping juries for fraud and financial crimes, ahead of the Courts and Tribunals Bill’s second reading in the House of Lords this week
Civil practitioners face changes spanning debt recovery, workplace harassment and possession claims, alongside guidance on insolvency challenges and children proceedings

Finding matrimonial wealth is as challenging as dividing it, as family disputes draw practitioners into asset tracing, offshore structures and insolvency

Agreement between opponents offers no guarantee that a court will approve a retrospective increase to a costs budget
back-to-top-scroll