- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Jordan v Burgoyne (1963)
Case Summary: This case concerns the interpretation of Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936, focusing on the offense of using insulting words likely to cause a breach of the peace. The key question is: What standard should be applied to determine the likelihood of a breach of the peace?
Facts:
Respondent (Burgoyne): A leader of the National Socialist movement, delivered a provocative speech at a Trafalgar Square rally.
Audience: A mixed group including communists, CND supporters, and Jewish activists, actively opposed to the rally.
Provocative Words: Burgoyne's speech included statements equating Hitler's actions with righteousness and blaming "world Jewry" for various issues. This led to immediate unrest and police intervention.
Initial Conviction: Burgoyne was convicted under s 5 of the Public Order Act 1936.
Appeal & Counter-Appeal: The initial appeal succeeded, arguing that reasonable people wouldn't be provoked to violence. The prosecution then appealed to the Divisional Court.
Key Issue & Decision:
The central issue is the subjectivity of the "likelihood of a breach of the peace" test. The Divisional Court overturned the appeal, stating:
No "Reasonable Person" Test: The court rejected the argument that the likelihood should be assessed based on a hypothetical "reasonable person." The speaker must accept their audience "as they find them," regardless of whether the audience members are considered reasonable or not.
Focus on the Words and the Audience: The test is whether the words used, given the specific audience present, are likely to provoke a breach of the peace. Even an audience of "hooligans" is relevant; if the words are likely to incite violence in that specific audience, the speaker is guilty.
Lord Parker CJ's Key Statement: This encapsulates the court's decision: The speaker must accept their audience as they find it. If the words used, however strong, are likely to provoke a breach of the peace in that particular audience, the speaker is guilty under the Public Order Act. This is crucial as it rejects an objective "reasonable person" standard and establishes a subjective approach based on the specific circumstances of the speech and its impact on the present listeners.
Study Points:
Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936: Understand the specific wording and the offense it defines.
Objective vs. Subjective Test: Contrast the rejected objective "reasonable person" test with the adopted subjective test based on the specific audience and their potential reaction.
Importance of Context: The case highlights the importance of context—the speaker's words, the nature of the audience, and the setting—in determining the likelihood of a breach of the peace.
Potential for Abuse: Consider the potential for this subjective approach to be used to suppress free speech in cases where the audience is known to be easily provoked, and potentially whether a speaker should be held responsible for the actions of potentially volatile individuals.
Key Takeaway: The court in Jordan v Burgoyne established that determining the likelihood of a breach of the peace resulting from insulting words is a subjective test. The speaker bears the responsibility of considering the particular audience present and the potential for their words to incite violence in that context. The test is not whether a reasonable person would be provoked, but rather whether the specific audience present is likely to be provoked to breach the peace by the words used.
Case Summary: This case concerns the interpretation of Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936, focusing on the offense of using insulting words likely to cause a breach of the peace. The key question is: What standard should be applied to determine the likelihood of a breach of the peace?
Facts:
Respondent (Burgoyne): A leader of the National Socialist movement, delivered a provocative speech at a Trafalgar Square rally.
Audience: A mixed group including communists, CND supporters, and Jewish activists, actively opposed to the rally.
Provocative Words: Burgoyne's speech included statements equating Hitler's actions with righteousness and blaming "world Jewry" for various issues. This led to immediate unrest and police intervention.
Initial Conviction: Burgoyne was convicted under s 5 of the Public Order Act 1936.
Appeal & Counter-Appeal: The initial appeal succeeded, arguing that reasonable people wouldn't be provoked to violence. The prosecution then appealed to the Divisional Court.
Key Issue & Decision:
The central issue is the subjectivity of the "likelihood of a breach of the peace" test. The Divisional Court overturned the appeal, stating:
No "Reasonable Person" Test: The court rejected the argument that the likelihood should be assessed based on a hypothetical "reasonable person." The speaker must accept their audience "as they find them," regardless of whether the audience members are considered reasonable or not.
Focus on the Words and the Audience: The test is whether the words used, given the specific audience present, are likely to provoke a breach of the peace. Even an audience of "hooligans" is relevant; if the words are likely to incite violence in that specific audience, the speaker is guilty.
Lord Parker CJ's Key Statement: This encapsulates the court's decision: The speaker must accept their audience as they find it. If the words used, however strong, are likely to provoke a breach of the peace in that particular audience, the speaker is guilty under the Public Order Act. This is crucial as it rejects an objective "reasonable person" standard and establishes a subjective approach based on the specific circumstances of the speech and its impact on the present listeners.
Study Points:
Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936: Understand the specific wording and the offense it defines.
Objective vs. Subjective Test: Contrast the rejected objective "reasonable person" test with the adopted subjective test based on the specific audience and their potential reaction.
Importance of Context: The case highlights the importance of context—the speaker's words, the nature of the audience, and the setting—in determining the likelihood of a breach of the peace.
Potential for Abuse: Consider the potential for this subjective approach to be used to suppress free speech in cases where the audience is known to be easily provoked, and potentially whether a speaker should be held responsible for the actions of potentially volatile individuals.
Key Takeaway: The court in Jordan v Burgoyne established that determining the likelihood of a breach of the peace resulting from insulting words is a subjective test. The speaker bears the responsibility of considering the particular audience present and the potential for their words to incite violence in that context. The test is not whether a reasonable person would be provoked, but rather whether the specific audience present is likely to be provoked to breach the peace by the words used.
0 Comments