Smith & Ors v Rex: Establishing the Boundaries of Public Nuisance under Section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022
Introduction
Smith & Ors v Rex ([2024] EWCA Crim 1040) is a landmark case adjudicated by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in England and Wales on September 13, 2024. This case marks the first instance where defendants were prosecuted under the newly established statutory offence of causing a public nuisance as delineated in Section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 ("s78"). The appellants, including notable figures such as David Baldwin and Louis McKechnie, were involved in a pre-arranged protest during the British Grand Prix at Silverstone Circuit. Their actions, aimed at disrupting the race, led to their conviction, which they subsequently appealed on various grounds.
Summary of the Judgment
The appellants engaged in a planned demonstration by trespassing onto the Silverstone motor circuit during the Formula 1 race on July 3, 2022. They intended to obstruct the race to garner media attention for the Just Stop Oil ("JSO") campaign. The prosecution charged them with conspiracy to cause a public nuisance and causing a public nuisance under s78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The jury found them guilty, emphasizing that their actions posed a risk of serious harm to a section of the public. Upon appeal, the defendants contended that the prosecution failed to establish that their actions endangered a "section of the public" as required by the statute. The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, affirming the applicability and interpretation of s78 in this context.
Analysis
Precedents Cited
The judgment extensively references several pivotal cases that have shaped the understanding of public nuisance:
- PYA Quarries [1957] 2 QB 169 - Defined public nuisance as actions affecting a class of Her Majesty's subjects, emphasizing material impact on comfort and convenience.
- R v Rimmington [2006] 1 AC 459 - Highlighted that individual acts affecting separate persons do not constitute a public nuisance unless they collectively impact a section of the public.
- R v Madden [1975] 1 WLR 1379 - Asserted that public nuisance must inflict significant injury on a substantial section of the public.
- R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8 - Clarified principles of secondary liability.
- R v Galbraith [1973] Cr. App. R. 124 - Established the 'no case to answer' submissions framework.
These cases primarily addressed the common law offence of public nuisance, which was abolished and replaced by the statutory offence under s78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.
Legal Reasoning
The Court of Appeal focused on the statutory language of s78, distinguishing it from the abolished common law offence. The key points in their legal reasoning include:
- Statutory Interpretation: The court emphasized that s78 must be interpreted based on its own wording, not strictly adhering to pre-existing common law definitions. Notably, the term "a section of the public" in s78 lacks the qualifying adjectives found in earlier case law, such as "significant" or "substantial."
- Risk Assessment: The primary consideration was whether the defendants' actions created a real, substantial risk of serious harm to a section of the public. The court found that the circumstances at the race track, including the presence of moving vehicles and the actions of the defendants, justified the prosecution's assertion of such a risk.
- Section of the Public: The court rejected the appellants' attempts to "atomize" the public into unrelated individuals. Instead, it accepted that the "Silverstone community," comprising drivers, marshals, and attendees, collectively constituted a section of the public.
- Secondary Liability: In David Baldwin's case, the court upheld his secondary liability, noting his role in encouraging the collective action of the defendants.
The court also addressed the appellant's submissions regarding the inadequacy of the jury directions, ultimately finding no error in the judge's instructions that would render the convictions unsafe.
Impact
This judgment has significant implications for the application of s78:
- Clarification of "Section of the Public": The court's interpretation underscores that a group of individuals engaged in common activities, such as those present at a motor race, can collectively be considered a section of the public. This broadens the scope of s78.
- Statutory Supremacy: The decision reaffirms that statutory offences are to be interpreted based on their legislative language, even when precedents from abolished common law offences exist. This emphasizes the importance of precise legislative drafting.
- Protest and Public Order: The ruling sets a precedent for how protests that involve trespassing on private property open to the public (e.g., race tracks, stadiums) may be prosecuted under s78, especially when they pose a risk of serious harm.
- Jury Directions: The case highlights the necessity for clear jury instructions regarding the assessment of risk and the identification of the public section affected.
Overall, the decision strengthens the state's ability to prosecute actions that disrupt public events and pose risks to public safety under the new statutory framework.
Complex Concepts Simplified
Public Nuisance
A public nuisance refers to actions or omissions that significantly interfere with the rights of the public. Under s78, this includes causing serious harm or obstructing the public in exercising their rights.
Section of the Public
This term refers to a group of people collectively considered as a part of the general public. In this case, it encompassed drivers, marshals, and spectators at the Silverstone event.
Secondary Liability
Secondary liability involves holding individuals accountable for crimes committed by others, provided they played a role in encouraging or facilitating those actions.
Risk of Serious Harm
This refers to the potential for death, injury, property damage, or significant distress caused by an individual's actions or omissions.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeal's decision in Smith & Ors v Rex solidifies the interpretation and enforcement of the statutory offence under s78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. By affirming that collective actions by a group can constitute a public nuisance and that such actions pose a legitimate risk to a section of the public, the court has set a clear precedent for future prosecutions. This case underscores the balance between public order and the right to protest, ensuring that demonstrations do not undermine public safety or the enjoyment of public events. The judgment not only clarifies the scope of s78 but also reinforces the judiciary's role in adapting legal interpretations to statutory language, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of legislative measures aimed at maintaining public order.
Comments