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.
Not exact matches
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.
Because being a zealous advocate within the bounds
of the law means that, some lawyers, some
of the time, will be professionally obligated to do things the
public does not like Some lawyers, some
of the time, will act for people the
public (correctly) assumes to have committed the factual and mental
elements of the
offence with which they are charged.
However, if a
public welfare
offence, where jail was a possible sanction, required no fault
element as in an absolute liability
offence, this violated s. 7
of the Charter and was deemed unconstitutional.
It was accepted that the
elements of the
offence were twofold: (i) there had to be contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous and / or ludicrous material relating to God, Christ, the Bible or the formularies
of the Church
of England; and (ii) the publication had to be such as tended to endanger society as a whole, by endangering the peace, depraving
public morality, shaking the fabric
of society or tending to cause civil strife.
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.
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.