WJEC Eduqas A Level Law Book 2 sample

34 Law of Tort Class of people: Group with a common interest In R v Ong (2001) , the defendant and others were planning to interfere with the floodlights during a Premier Division football match between Charlton Athletic and Liverpool. They pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit a public nuisance (and another offence). The class of people that would have been affected by the nuisance were the football spectators. The defendants unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal against the custodial sentences imposed in the Crown Court. Class of people: Impact on the community In R v Lowrie (2004) , the defendant, who had made a number of hoax calls to the emergency services, pleaded guilty to causing a public nuisance. The class of people that would have been affected by the nuisance were those who were in genuine need of help from the emergency services but could not get help because the emergency services had been diverted by the hoax calls. The defendant appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal against the custodial sentence imposed. Sending abusive letters In R v Rimmington (2006) , the House of Lords held that sending racially offensive materials to members of the public was not a public nuisance. The reasoning was that sending individual letters to individual people did not constitute a nuisance affecting a class of people. The House of Lords also stated that common law offences such as public nuisance should not be used for conduct covered by a statutory offence unless there was a good reason. Rimmington could have been prosecuted under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 . Making obscene telephone calls In R v Johnson (1997) , the Court of Appeal held that making obscene telephone calls to several women in a geographic area was a public nuisance. However, the House of Lords indicated in R v Rimmington (2006) that such behaviour is unlikely to amount to a public nuisance as they were separate calls made to separate people rather than to a class of people. Making obscene telephone calls can now be prosecuted under statutory provisions such as the Communications Act 2003 . Law Commission Report No 358 The Law Commission indicated in 2015 that: • prosecutions for public nuisance were still occurring despite relevant statutory provisions • some nuisance telephone call cases were still being prosecuted as a public nuisance. Both of the above cases indicate that limitations on prosecution imposed in Rimmington (2006) were not being ‘reflected in practice’. Read the Law Commission’s report, ‘Simplification of Criminal Law: Public Nuisance and Outraging Public Decency’ (Law Com No 358, 2015; www.lawcom.gov.uk/wp- content/uploads/2015/06/ lc358_public_nuisance.pdf). You need only read the parts concerning public nuisance. You will find that the report gives a good insight into public nuisance. What criticisms does the Law Commission make of the law on public nuisance? How does the Law Commission suggest that the law on public nuisance could be reformed? STRETCH AND CHALLENGE