Director of Public Prosecutions V Orum
Queen’s Bench Division
18 July 1988
[1989] 1 W.L.R. 88
Introduction In R v Orum1, a dispute arose regarding the likelihood of a police officer being subjected to harassment. The controversial issues of this case included the question of whether the police should be excluded from section 5(1)(a) of people who are likely to be caused distress. Other issues include the question of whether the arrest of the defendant was lawful as the Justices ruled that it was not therefore eliminating the assault as a breach of s51(1) of the Police Act 1964.
Facts of the case:
The defendant was charged with the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or disorderly behavior within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress under section 5(1)(a) of the Public Order Act 1986. Secondly, the assault of Douglas Campbell Crossan under section 51(1) of the Police Act 1964.
The initial offence includes that at 1:15am an argument between the defendant and his girlfriend erupted whilst they were standing 8-10 feet away from the nearest house. The defendant was verbally abusive and intoxicated at the time of the offence.
PC Hickman warned the defendant to quieten down twice. In response, Orum
…show more content…
There are many dissenting views on this area of law as illustrated in Smith (1987) where it was found that there is ‘’no reason why policemen should not be recognized as victims of offensive conduct’’.15 In contrast to the case of Thornton (1987) where it was found that a ‘’ police officer should not be distressed by mere abuse or insulting behavior’’.16 In agreement with this case, the High court held in Southard v DPP [2006] that there should be a question of context in order to conclude whether there is a breach of the