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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll