Sentences with phrase «outraging public decency»

Those cases established that if the offence of outraging public decency was to be proved, it was necessary to prove two elements: first, that the act was of such a lewd character as to outrage public decency; that element constituted the nature of the act which had to be proved before the offence could be established.

He submitted that the offence of outraging public decency, as developed by 19th century authorities, was confined to instances where a lewd act had been witnessed by a least one person.

The defendant was subsequently convicted of committing an act of outraging public decency contrary to the common law.

The two person rule in respect of establishing the public element of the offence of outraging public decency contrary to the common law can be satisfied if there were two or more people present who were capable of seeing the nature of the act, even if they did not actually see it.

For example, the offence of outraging public decency criminalises lewd, obscene or disgusting behaviour committed in public, but requires for the act to have taken place in the presence of two or more people.

Furthermore, the offence of outraging public decency does not fall under the sex offenders» notification requirements, while a voyeur convicted under section 67 can be made subject to notification if the sentence passed is over a certain threshold or if the victim is under 18.

Those who have been caught upskirting in public have previously been convicted of outraging public decency.

HELD In order to prove an offence of outraging public decency the prosecution had to show that: (i) that the act was of such a lewd, obscene or disgusting character that it outraged public decency; and (ii) that the act took place in a public place and that it was capable of being seen by two or more persons present even if they had not actually seen it.

On the question of the meaning of outraging public decency, Lord Simon opined:

«Whether on the evidence allowed before the court an offence of outraging public decency had been committed, as no one other than the appellant was shown to be aware of what he was doing when he was filming.»

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.

Professor Ormerod has suggested that these words indicate that in the future, prosecutions for outraging public decency may become more scarce.

It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the law relating to the offence of outraging public decency had developed in such a way that the offence was confined to those instances where the necessary lewd act had been witnessed by at least one person, and the public nature of the offence was only satisfied if, in addition, at least one other person either had or could have seen the act.

«Outraging public decency» goes considerably beyond offending the susceptibilities of, or even shocking, reasonable people.»

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 public decency.

Thus in Sedley's case (1675) Strange 168, 1 Sid 168, the defendant pleaded guilty to outraging public decency where he had appeared naked on the balcony of a house and had urinated on several people present.

In future, however, it seems likely that outraging public decency will be confined to those acts which do not fall squarely within the scope of a statutory offence.

As part of our plea agreement, the defendant pled no contest to the misdemeanor offense of outraging public decency.

Prosecutors charged Shannon Denney, 32, with outraging public decency and public morals, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $ 500 fine.

But during an eleven - day trial at Guildford Crown Court, a jury took less than four hours to acquit him of all two dozen indecent assault counts, and one count of outraging public decency.

In that case, where the defendants had been convicted on two counts of conspiracy to corrupt public morals and conspiracy to outrage public decency in respect of the publication of a magazine which contained advertisements inviting readers to engage in homosexual acts, the House of Lords was split about whether a common law offence of conspiracy to outrage public decency existed.

Turning to the related question, whether the act was such as to outrage public decency, Thomas LJ noted the decision of the House of Lords in Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promotion) Ltd v DPP [1972] 2 All ER 898, [1972] 3 WLR 143.

The first of these elements consists of two parts: an act which is lewd, obscene or disgusting; and which is such as to outrage public decency.

The public element in the offence was satisfied if the act was done where people were present and the nature of what was being done was capable of being seen; the principle was that the public were to be protected from obscene or disgusting acts which were of a nature that outraged public decency and which were capable of being seen in public.

Moreover, the purpose of the requirement that the act be of such a kind that it outraged public decency went to setting a standard which the jury had to judge by reference to contemporary standards; it did not require that someone saw the act and was outraged.

Not exact matches

That the extent of public outrage was underestimated reveals how inured the art world inner sanctum has become to humanity's threshold of decency.

In Lord Simon's opinion, such an interpretation was borne out by the purpose of the legal rule, ie «that reasonable people may venture out in public without the risk of outrage to certain minimum accepted standards of decency».