Criminal law

Public order and violence I v DPP (2001) The Times, 9 March In this case the House of Lords gave consideration to the offence of affray.

It emphasised that for there to be an affray the court must consider the position of three people.

There was first a defendant who must use or threaten unlawful violence.

There must then be another to whom that threat or unlawful violence is directed.

Finally, the court must consider the position of a third party (if he had been present) who must be in fear of his own safety.

In this case a large group of youths armed themselves with petrol bombs awaiting the arrival of an opposing gang.

However, the opposing gang did not arrive while large numbers of police officers did.

However, there was no antagonism towards the police and the defendants left the scene without making any threat or using any violence to the officers.

They were charged with affray.

The House of Lords held that this was an inappropriate charge on the facts of the case.

While possession of petrol bombs could amount to a threat of violence and the view of the notional third party could be inferred from the circumstances, there had to be direct evidence that there was a person to whom the threat or use of unlawful violence was made.

In this particular case there was no such evidence.Reasonable chastisementR v H (reasonable chastisement) (2001) The Times, 17 MayThe defence of reasonable chastisement remains available to a parent or guardian notwithstanding the rights of a child under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

What is reasonable may change over the years and courts should consider whether the chastisement was reasonable and moderate.

Relevant factors included:l Nature and context of the defendant's behaviour;l Duration of the behaviour;l Physical and mental consequence on child;l Age and personal characteristics of the child;l Reasons for the punishment given by the defendant.Foresight testDPP v A (2001) 1 Crim LR 130The mental element in an offence under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 was considered in this case.

The court held that the degree of foresight required is not whether the defendant had foreseen that some harm would be done but rather whether such harm might be done.

This is a much lower test and easier for the Crown to prove having established grievous bodily harm.

By Anthony Edwards, TV Edwards, London