header-logo header-logo

11 October 2007 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 7292 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Unseen outrage

Should the offence of outraging public decency be abolished? Neil Parpworth reports

In its report Conspiracy and Criminal Law Reform (1976), Law Com No 76, the Law Commission recommended that the common law offence of outraging public decency be abolished. Although this view was expressed more than 30 years ago, the offence remains and outraging public decency has continued to attract criticism in the years that have followed.
In a comment on R (Rose) v DPP [2006] EWHC 852 (Admin), [2006] All ER (D) 225 (Mar), Professor Ormerod opined that the offence “remains as unsatisfactorily defined as most of the other common law offences” (see [2006] Crim LR 993). Criticisms have also been levelled at the way in which the offence may be used by prosecutors to preclude the availability of statutory defences.

With these criticisms in mind, the latest in a long line of cases, R v Hamilton [2007] EWCA Crim 2026, [2007] All ER (D) 99 (Aug), merits consideration to determine what light it throws, if any, on the elements of the offence of outraging

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll