Page 12 - tmp

section I(I)(a) of the 1998 Act and the wording of sections 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act
1986. Section 4A, as inserted by section 154 of the Criminal justice and Public- Order Act
1994, provides:
“(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or
distress, 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, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or
distress.”
Section 5 provides:
“(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 p caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.”
Section 1. (1) of the 1998 Act provides:
“An application for an order under this section may be made by a relevant authority if it
appears to the authority that the following conditions are fulfilled with respect to any person
aged ten or over, namely—(a) that the person has acted, since the commencement date, in an
anti-social manner, that is to say, in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment,
alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as himself. .
In reliance on authorities, the majority of which were considering the meaning of the term
“criminal cause or matter”, counsel further submitted that an application under section r of
the 1998 Act. is a criminal proceeding because it can result under section 1(10) in the
imposition of a term of imprisonment. Counsel cited Proprietary Articles Trade Association
v Attorney General for Canada [1-931] AC 310, 324 where Lord Atkin stated:
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
45,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 10
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Hutton
“It appears to their Lordships to be of little value to seek to confine
crimes to a category of acts which by their very nature belong to the domain of ‘criminal
jurisprudence1; for the domain of criminal jurisprudence can only be ascertained by
examining what acts at any particular period are declared by the state to be crimes, and the
only common nature they will be found to possess is that they are prohibited by the state and
that those who commit them are punished.”
In Exp Alice Woodbail (1888) io QBD 832, 837-838, Lindley LJ stated:
“Can we say that the application in the present case is not an application in a criminal cause
or matter? I think that in substance it certainly is. Its whole object is to enable the person in
custody to escape being sent for trial in America upon a charge of forgery.”
In Amand v Home Secretary [1943] AC 147,156 Viscount Simon LC stated:
“If the matter is one the direct outcome of which may be trial of the applicant and his possible
punishment for an alleged offence by a court claiming jurisdiction to do so, the matter is
criminal.”
Lord "Wright stated, at p 162:
“if the cause or matter is one which, if carried to its conclusion, might
result in the conviction of the person charged and in a sentence of some punishment, such as
imprisonment or fine, it is a ‘criminal cause or matter’.” I am unable to accept these
submissions. The application for an anti-social behaviour order does not charge the defendant
with having committed a crime. The purpose of the application is to obtain an order

Page 10 of 139