THE RULE OF LAW
From: Mr. John Gouriet and Mr Anthony Bennett
[addresses withheld]
Tel: 01279 635789
Mobile: 07835 716537
e-mail: ajsbennett@btinternet.com
Thursday 9 February 2006
Rt. Hon. The Lord Goldsmith QC
Attorney General
Attorney General’’s Chambers
9 Buckingham Gate
London SW1E 6JP
BY RECORDED DELIVERY
My Lord,
re: APPLICATION FOR SUMMONS OF VARIOUS IDENTIFIED PERSONS SEEN ON 2-4 FEBRUARY 2006 IN LONDON, COMMITTING CRIMINAL OFFENCES, FROM DISPLAYING THREATENING SIGNS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986, TO INCITEMENT TO EXTREME VIOLENCE AND MURDER, CONTRARY TO THE OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861
You will be aware of the very serious and unacceptable behaviour of a substantial group of Islamist followers last Thursday, Friday and Saturday 2-4 February 2006 in Central London. Their words and placards were beyond all reasonable doubt deliberately intended to threaten and strike terror into the hearts of everyone who witnessed their demonstration. They demanded the most dire punishment of death inter alia by beheading for all who had in any way been involved in the publication of some cartoons beyond our shores in September last year, alleged to have been offensive to the sacred memory of their Prophet Muhammad.
It is beyond belief throughout the nation that such a demonstration of terrorism could be allowed to proceed in the United Kingdom. It is intolerable that it should so far appear to have been permitted to take place unchallenged, when its perpetrators so clearly and publicly breached a number of criminal Acts that it is your duty to ensure are upheld. Failure to hold those responsible to account, for no matter what reason, can only encourage those who seek to impose their will and their ways by such horrific means to continue with that which they have so far got away with, and perhaps even put their direst threats into practice.
A week has now elapsed since the first demonstration outside the BBC. There has been no indication so far that the Crown Prosecution Service or the Metropolitan Police are intending to prosecute those responsible. Indeed, the Metropolitan Police has issued several statements that it will only prosecute ‘if necessary’. There is nothing that we can find anywhere in law that suggests that once a crime known to law appears to have been committed, that the Police or the Crown Prosecution Service have authority to decide if it is ‘necessary’ to bring charges. The key criteria are the sufficiency of evidence and the public interest, not necessity.
We sincerely hope that the Crown Prosecution Service will fulfil its duty and act alone. However if it does not, we as two private citizens and loyal subjects of HM the Queen, shall most earnestly entreat you, as Her Majesty’s Attorney General and first law officer of the Crown, responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service, to lend us your fiat and join us as co-plaintiff in upholding the law of the land in the High Court and if necessary beyond.
If however in your wisdom, without demonstrably good reason, you decide not to ensure that the law of the land is upheld, we may reluctantly be compelled to join you as a defendant with others responsible in authority.
To assist you, our application is intended to be submitted along the following lines:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Defendants;
(1) Mr ANJEM CHOUDRAY, c/o Allah Ghurabba Group, whose private address is known to the Metropolitan Police.
(2) Mr OMAR KAYYAM from Bedford, at an address known to the Police or to the Prison Service
(3) Individual protesters on Friday 3 February and Saturday 4 February who were seen or heard by Police Officers and others carrying out the following actions:
(a) writing placards and banners which displayed threatening words
(b) holding placards and banners which displayed threatening words
(c) using threatening, abusive and insulting words.
The names and addresses of all the above are known to the Metropolitan
Police; please see below.
The above-named should be required to answer to the under-mentioned charges.
In view of the sensitive nature of this issue, we request that our address(es) be given only to the magistrates, district judge or senior court officials in the event of our intervention.
We have written to the Head of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Ian Blair, to ask for his help in identifying the names and addresses of those seen or heard carrying out the above actions. If these are not made available to us prior to any hearing, it is our intention to apply for a direction from the judge in the following terms:
“That the Metropolitan Police be ordered to supply the names and addresses of all those seen or heard writing or holding placards or banners displaying threatening words, or using threatening, abusive or insulting words”.
The police have been widely quoted as stating that charges will be brought in respect of the facts stated below “if necessary”. Leading moderate Muslims like Sir Iqbal Sacranie as well as politicians from all parties and from all shades of opinion have called for urgent prosecutions in respect of these matters. The purpose of this letter is to get these proceedings under way without any further delay.
Charges:
1. That on 2, 3 and 4 February 2006 Mr Anjem Choudray solicited [i.e. incited] murder by avowedly organising a demonstration with dozens of placards calling inter alia for the massacre or murder of those opposed to or insulting Islam, contrary to Section 4, Offences of the Person Act 1861.
2. That on 2, 3 and 4 February 2006 Mr Anjem Choudray organised the displaying of signs on a public march with the premeditated and specific intention of displaying threatening, abusive or insulting words, calculated to incite hatred and violence and strike fear into all who witnessed these acts in person or on television, contrary to Section 4 and Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.
3. That on 2, 3 and 4 February 2006 a number of persons, at least several dozen, all of whom have been allegedly identified by the Metropolitan Police, prepared, carried and openly displayed signs on a public march which were threatening, abusive or insulting, contrary to Sections 4 and 5, Public Order Act 1986.
4. That Mr Omar Kayyam, of Bedford, living at an address known to the Police and the Prison Service, incited violence and murder contrary to the Public Order Act Sections 4 and 5 and contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 by openly dressing himself up on the demonstrations on 3 and 4 February 2006 as a suicide bomber.
Names of Persons to be Charged:
(1) Mr Anjem Choudray c/o Allah Ghurabaa group, or Al Ghurabba, (2) Mr Omar Kayyam of an address in Bedford known to the Police and the Prison Service, and (3) others whose name and address are known to the Metropolitan Police. More information is available to help the authorities to locate the whereabouts of Anjem Choudhary from Wikipedia, the Internet encyclopaedia. He is believed to be behind an extremist Islamist website which promotes and incites violence and murder. This is their entry today:
-------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Ghurabaa
Death threats
In response to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Al Ghurabaa published an article on their website titled, "Kill those who insult the Prophet Muhammad". The article states, "The insulting of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) is something that the Muslims cannot and will not tolerate and the punishment in Islam for the one who does so is death. This is the word of the prophet and the verdict of Islam upon such people, one that any Muslim is able to execute."[1]
Al Ghurabaa had organised the 3 February protest march from London Central Mosque to Regents Park [2][3] where protesters waived placards reading, "Butcher those who mock Islam", "Kill those who insult Islam", "Europe you will pay, your 9/11 is on the way", or "7/7 is on its way", "Europe you will pay, Bin Laden is on his way" and "Europe you'll come crawling, when the Mujahideen come roaring". Despite the similar theme on Al Ghurabaa's website, their spokesman, Anjem Choudary, said he did not know who wrote the placards. [4] MPs from all parties condemned the protest, calling on the Metropolitan police to pursue those responsible on the grounds that the threats were an incitement to murder.[5]
------------------------------------------------
The address of Mr Omar Kayyam is known to the Police. He was arrested on 7 February 2006 and put back in prison after it was found that he had breached his parole and licence conditions after being released early after being sentenced in 2002 to a 5½ year sentence for possession and supply of Class A drugs. We do not know which prison he is in, but he may be served with a summons there.
On Sunday, 5 February, we enquired of P.C. 116 BS at Kensington Police Station (Police Reference CAD 3603) whether or not it was proposed to charge with any offence those engaged in organising the display of dozens of signs which, inter alia, called for the massacre, slaughter and murder of those who ‘insulted’ or opposed Islam. He advised us, and we quote verbatim, that: “Don’t worry. The Police were filming all the protestors; we had just as many undercover plain clothes Police Officers taking photographs as uniformed Police Offices. We know the names and addresses of every single one of those taking part in the march”.
Particulars of Alleged Offences:
1. The signs
The signs displayed by the marchers were widely transmitted on television during 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 February. They include demonstrations outside the BBC on Thursday 2 February and demonstrations from the London Central Mosque at Regents Park to the Danish Embassy on Friday 3 and Saturday 4 February. Many photographs of the banners and placards appeared in all major national newspapers, in magazines, and several regional and local papers.
These are some of the slogans noted and photographed:
“Behead those who insult Islam”
“Behead those who insult the Prophet”
“Exterminate those who slander Islam”
“Massacre those who insult Islam”
“Whoever insults a Prophet, Kill Him” (carried by a number of adults and children)
“Europe you will pay, 9/11 is on its way” (a reference to the Islamist attack on the Twin Towers on 9 September 2001)
“Europe Your 9/11 will come”
“Europe, you’’ll come crawling, when the Mujahideen come roaring” [“Mujahideen” = Islamist warriors]
“Mujahideen are on their way” [“Mujahideen” = Islamist warriors]
“Butcher those who mock Islam”
“Behead the one who insults the Prophet”
“Be prepared for the Real Holocaust”
“Mock today, die tomorrow, Denmark”
“Death to those who insult the prophet”
“Europe you will pay; Fantastic Four are on their way” [The “Fantastic Four” is a commonly-used Islamist term to refer to the four British-born ‘suicide bombers’ who killed 52 people and injured hundreds of others in London on 7 July in four bomb attacks last year]
“I Love Al Qa’eda” (on a band around the head of a child) [Al Qa’eda claims direct responsibility for many terrorist attacks which have killed hundreds of people and injured thousands in recent years, including the bombing of the Twin Towers in New York on 9 September 2001)
“Freedom: Go to Hell”
“Democracy Go To Hell”.
Muslim women, mostly dressed in burqas or hajibs, were seen writing out the placards.
This is by no mean a complete listing of all the placards and banners seen, but these were the most prominent of those seen on TV film and in newspaper photographs in recent days.
Samples of the material displayed and photographs of those displaying them are enclosed with this letter.
2. The Law
The relevant law is cited below, with those subsections that apply to the facts above being highlighted
Section 4, Public Order Act 1986 - Fear or provocation of violence
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he -
a) uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
b) distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be provoked
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is distributed or displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing on offence under this subsection
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 (Currently £5,000) on the standard scale or both.
Section 5, Public Order Act 1986 - Harassment, alarm or distress
(1) A 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
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove -
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, or
b) That he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
c) That his conduct was reasonable
(4) A constable may arrest without warrant if -
a) He engages in offensive conduct which the constable warns him to stop, and
b) He engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning
(5) In subsection (4) above 'offensive conduct' means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature
(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
Offences Against The Person Act 1861.
Soliciting murder, or as it has become known more recently ‘incitement to murder’ (the charge which has been upheld again the extremist Islamist Abu Hamza on 7 February 2006) is an offence under Section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100).
It should be noted that within the last two or three years an elderly single protester, a Mr Harry Hammond, was roughed up by some ‘gays’, arrested, fined £350 and ordered to pay prosecution costs and have his signs destroyed by Wimborne Magistrates Court under Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act when he displayed a sign saying ‘Stop Homosexuality’, and ‘Stop Immorality’ in Bournemouth Square. In another incident a pub landlady in Middlesbrough was similarly convicted, fined and ordered to pay costs in relation to displaying a scarf with the words ‘Sunderland are ‘shite’’, also under Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act. These do not begin to compare with the gravity of the material displayed on Friday and Saturday and the necessity for those who prepared and displayed those signs to be brought to justice without further delay.
We are aware of the powers of the Crown Prosecution Service to take over a prosecution and we strongly urge that they do so in this case by prosecuting those responsible for organising writing and carrying the banners during these demonstrations.
If there is any clarification you require regarding any of the contents of this letter, please do not hesitate to contact us.
If we are compelled to initiate private proceedings, with or without your fiat, we may request the assistance of the Court in ensuring the availability of those who are in a position to give evidence, namely officers of the Metropolitan Police on duty, Metropolitan Police photographers, TV companies who took video footage, photographers who took still pictures etc.
Yours faithfully,
John Gouriet
Anthony Bennett
[addresses withheld]
Tel: 01279 635789
Mobile: 07835 716537
e-mail: ajsbennett@btinternet.com
Thursday 9 February 2006
Rt. Hon. The Lord Goldsmith QC
Attorney General
Attorney General’’s Chambers
9 Buckingham Gate
London SW1E 6JP
BY RECORDED DELIVERY
My Lord,
re: APPLICATION FOR SUMMONS OF VARIOUS IDENTIFIED PERSONS SEEN ON 2-4 FEBRUARY 2006 IN LONDON, COMMITTING CRIMINAL OFFENCES, FROM DISPLAYING THREATENING SIGNS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986, TO INCITEMENT TO EXTREME VIOLENCE AND MURDER, CONTRARY TO THE OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861
You will be aware of the very serious and unacceptable behaviour of a substantial group of Islamist followers last Thursday, Friday and Saturday 2-4 February 2006 in Central London. Their words and placards were beyond all reasonable doubt deliberately intended to threaten and strike terror into the hearts of everyone who witnessed their demonstration. They demanded the most dire punishment of death inter alia by beheading for all who had in any way been involved in the publication of some cartoons beyond our shores in September last year, alleged to have been offensive to the sacred memory of their Prophet Muhammad.
It is beyond belief throughout the nation that such a demonstration of terrorism could be allowed to proceed in the United Kingdom. It is intolerable that it should so far appear to have been permitted to take place unchallenged, when its perpetrators so clearly and publicly breached a number of criminal Acts that it is your duty to ensure are upheld. Failure to hold those responsible to account, for no matter what reason, can only encourage those who seek to impose their will and their ways by such horrific means to continue with that which they have so far got away with, and perhaps even put their direst threats into practice.
A week has now elapsed since the first demonstration outside the BBC. There has been no indication so far that the Crown Prosecution Service or the Metropolitan Police are intending to prosecute those responsible. Indeed, the Metropolitan Police has issued several statements that it will only prosecute ‘if necessary’. There is nothing that we can find anywhere in law that suggests that once a crime known to law appears to have been committed, that the Police or the Crown Prosecution Service have authority to decide if it is ‘necessary’ to bring charges. The key criteria are the sufficiency of evidence and the public interest, not necessity.
We sincerely hope that the Crown Prosecution Service will fulfil its duty and act alone. However if it does not, we as two private citizens and loyal subjects of HM the Queen, shall most earnestly entreat you, as Her Majesty’s Attorney General and first law officer of the Crown, responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service, to lend us your fiat and join us as co-plaintiff in upholding the law of the land in the High Court and if necessary beyond.
If however in your wisdom, without demonstrably good reason, you decide not to ensure that the law of the land is upheld, we may reluctantly be compelled to join you as a defendant with others responsible in authority.
To assist you, our application is intended to be submitted along the following lines:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Defendants;
(1) Mr ANJEM CHOUDRAY, c/o Allah Ghurabba Group, whose private address is known to the Metropolitan Police.
(2) Mr OMAR KAYYAM from Bedford, at an address known to the Police or to the Prison Service
(3) Individual protesters on Friday 3 February and Saturday 4 February who were seen or heard by Police Officers and others carrying out the following actions:
(a) writing placards and banners which displayed threatening words
(b) holding placards and banners which displayed threatening words
(c) using threatening, abusive and insulting words.
The names and addresses of all the above are known to the Metropolitan
Police; please see below.
The above-named should be required to answer to the under-mentioned charges.
In view of the sensitive nature of this issue, we request that our address(es) be given only to the magistrates, district judge or senior court officials in the event of our intervention.
We have written to the Head of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Ian Blair, to ask for his help in identifying the names and addresses of those seen or heard carrying out the above actions. If these are not made available to us prior to any hearing, it is our intention to apply for a direction from the judge in the following terms:
“That the Metropolitan Police be ordered to supply the names and addresses of all those seen or heard writing or holding placards or banners displaying threatening words, or using threatening, abusive or insulting words”.
The police have been widely quoted as stating that charges will be brought in respect of the facts stated below “if necessary”. Leading moderate Muslims like Sir Iqbal Sacranie as well as politicians from all parties and from all shades of opinion have called for urgent prosecutions in respect of these matters. The purpose of this letter is to get these proceedings under way without any further delay.
Charges:
1. That on 2, 3 and 4 February 2006 Mr Anjem Choudray solicited [i.e. incited] murder by avowedly organising a demonstration with dozens of placards calling inter alia for the massacre or murder of those opposed to or insulting Islam, contrary to Section 4, Offences of the Person Act 1861.
2. That on 2, 3 and 4 February 2006 Mr Anjem Choudray organised the displaying of signs on a public march with the premeditated and specific intention of displaying threatening, abusive or insulting words, calculated to incite hatred and violence and strike fear into all who witnessed these acts in person or on television, contrary to Section 4 and Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.
3. That on 2, 3 and 4 February 2006 a number of persons, at least several dozen, all of whom have been allegedly identified by the Metropolitan Police, prepared, carried and openly displayed signs on a public march which were threatening, abusive or insulting, contrary to Sections 4 and 5, Public Order Act 1986.
4. That Mr Omar Kayyam, of Bedford, living at an address known to the Police and the Prison Service, incited violence and murder contrary to the Public Order Act Sections 4 and 5 and contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 by openly dressing himself up on the demonstrations on 3 and 4 February 2006 as a suicide bomber.
Names of Persons to be Charged:
(1) Mr Anjem Choudray c/o Allah Ghurabaa group, or Al Ghurabba, (2) Mr Omar Kayyam of an address in Bedford known to the Police and the Prison Service, and (3) others whose name and address are known to the Metropolitan Police. More information is available to help the authorities to locate the whereabouts of Anjem Choudhary from Wikipedia, the Internet encyclopaedia. He is believed to be behind an extremist Islamist website which promotes and incites violence and murder. This is their entry today:
-------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Ghurabaa
Death threats
In response to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Al Ghurabaa published an article on their website titled, "Kill those who insult the Prophet Muhammad". The article states, "The insulting of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) is something that the Muslims cannot and will not tolerate and the punishment in Islam for the one who does so is death. This is the word of the prophet and the verdict of Islam upon such people, one that any Muslim is able to execute."[1]
Al Ghurabaa had organised the 3 February protest march from London Central Mosque to Regents Park [2][3] where protesters waived placards reading, "Butcher those who mock Islam", "Kill those who insult Islam", "Europe you will pay, your 9/11 is on the way", or "7/7 is on its way", "Europe you will pay, Bin Laden is on his way" and "Europe you'll come crawling, when the Mujahideen come roaring". Despite the similar theme on Al Ghurabaa's website, their spokesman, Anjem Choudary, said he did not know who wrote the placards. [4] MPs from all parties condemned the protest, calling on the Metropolitan police to pursue those responsible on the grounds that the threats were an incitement to murder.[5]
------------------------------------------------
The address of Mr Omar Kayyam is known to the Police. He was arrested on 7 February 2006 and put back in prison after it was found that he had breached his parole and licence conditions after being released early after being sentenced in 2002 to a 5½ year sentence for possession and supply of Class A drugs. We do not know which prison he is in, but he may be served with a summons there.
On Sunday, 5 February, we enquired of P.C. 116 BS at Kensington Police Station (Police Reference CAD 3603) whether or not it was proposed to charge with any offence those engaged in organising the display of dozens of signs which, inter alia, called for the massacre, slaughter and murder of those who ‘insulted’ or opposed Islam. He advised us, and we quote verbatim, that: “Don’t worry. The Police were filming all the protestors; we had just as many undercover plain clothes Police Officers taking photographs as uniformed Police Offices. We know the names and addresses of every single one of those taking part in the march”.
Particulars of Alleged Offences:
1. The signs
The signs displayed by the marchers were widely transmitted on television during 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 February. They include demonstrations outside the BBC on Thursday 2 February and demonstrations from the London Central Mosque at Regents Park to the Danish Embassy on Friday 3 and Saturday 4 February. Many photographs of the banners and placards appeared in all major national newspapers, in magazines, and several regional and local papers.
These are some of the slogans noted and photographed:
“Behead those who insult Islam”
“Behead those who insult the Prophet”
“Exterminate those who slander Islam”
“Massacre those who insult Islam”
“Whoever insults a Prophet, Kill Him” (carried by a number of adults and children)
“Europe you will pay, 9/11 is on its way” (a reference to the Islamist attack on the Twin Towers on 9 September 2001)
“Europe Your 9/11 will come”
“Europe, you’’ll come crawling, when the Mujahideen come roaring” [“Mujahideen” = Islamist warriors]
“Mujahideen are on their way” [“Mujahideen” = Islamist warriors]
“Butcher those who mock Islam”
“Behead the one who insults the Prophet”
“Be prepared for the Real Holocaust”
“Mock today, die tomorrow, Denmark”
“Death to those who insult the prophet”
“Europe you will pay; Fantastic Four are on their way” [The “Fantastic Four” is a commonly-used Islamist term to refer to the four British-born ‘suicide bombers’ who killed 52 people and injured hundreds of others in London on 7 July in four bomb attacks last year]
“I Love Al Qa’eda” (on a band around the head of a child) [Al Qa’eda claims direct responsibility for many terrorist attacks which have killed hundreds of people and injured thousands in recent years, including the bombing of the Twin Towers in New York on 9 September 2001)
“Freedom: Go to Hell”
“Democracy Go To Hell”.
Muslim women, mostly dressed in burqas or hajibs, were seen writing out the placards.
This is by no mean a complete listing of all the placards and banners seen, but these were the most prominent of those seen on TV film and in newspaper photographs in recent days.
Samples of the material displayed and photographs of those displaying them are enclosed with this letter.
2. The Law
The relevant law is cited below, with those subsections that apply to the facts above being highlighted
Section 4, Public Order Act 1986 - Fear or provocation of violence
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he -
a) uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
b) distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be provoked
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is distributed or displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing on offence under this subsection
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 (Currently £5,000) on the standard scale or both.
Section 5, Public Order Act 1986 - Harassment, alarm or distress
(1) A 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
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove -
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, or
b) That he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
c) That his conduct was reasonable
(4) A constable may arrest without warrant if -
a) He engages in offensive conduct which the constable warns him to stop, and
b) He engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning
(5) In subsection (4) above 'offensive conduct' means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature
(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
Offences Against The Person Act 1861.
Soliciting murder, or as it has become known more recently ‘incitement to murder’ (the charge which has been upheld again the extremist Islamist Abu Hamza on 7 February 2006) is an offence under Section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100).
It should be noted that within the last two or three years an elderly single protester, a Mr Harry Hammond, was roughed up by some ‘gays’, arrested, fined £350 and ordered to pay prosecution costs and have his signs destroyed by Wimborne Magistrates Court under Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act when he displayed a sign saying ‘Stop Homosexuality’, and ‘Stop Immorality’ in Bournemouth Square. In another incident a pub landlady in Middlesbrough was similarly convicted, fined and ordered to pay costs in relation to displaying a scarf with the words ‘Sunderland are ‘shite’’, also under Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act. These do not begin to compare with the gravity of the material displayed on Friday and Saturday and the necessity for those who prepared and displayed those signs to be brought to justice without further delay.
We are aware of the powers of the Crown Prosecution Service to take over a prosecution and we strongly urge that they do so in this case by prosecuting those responsible for organising writing and carrying the banners during these demonstrations.
If there is any clarification you require regarding any of the contents of this letter, please do not hesitate to contact us.
If we are compelled to initiate private proceedings, with or without your fiat, we may request the assistance of the Court in ensuring the availability of those who are in a position to give evidence, namely officers of the Metropolitan Police on duty, Metropolitan Police photographers, TV companies who took video footage, photographers who took still pictures etc.
Yours faithfully,
John Gouriet
Anthony Bennett
posted by erc @ 8:41 pm
<< Home