Raffaelli v Heatly

Factual and Procedural Background

The case concerns an individual accused of peering through a slit in the curtains of a dwelling-house on two occasions late at night. The accused was observed by several women from the street, and one woman, described as an invalid, was sufficiently disturbed to summon the police, fearing that her husband might react violently if informed directly. The accused's conduct involved looking into a lighted room repeatedly for several minutes each time. The matter was brought before a police judge who found the accused guilty of breach of the peace, a decision that was subsequently challenged.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the facts as found by the police judge were sufficient to justify the conclusion that the accused committed a breach of the peace.
2. Whether the conduct of peering into a dwelling-house window, without direct evidence of alarm or disturbance by witnesses, could constitute disorderly conduct amounting to breach of the peace.
3. Whether it is necessary for witnesses to personally testify that they were alarmed or annoyed for a breach of the peace to be established.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant's counsel contended that the facts found were insufficient to justify the conviction, emphasizing that the accused merely walked down the street and looked through a curtain slit on two occasions.
• There was no evidence that anyone was alarmed or disturbed by the conduct; none of the witnesses testified to being upset.
• No evidence was presented as to what was occurring inside the house, undermining any inference that anyone was alarmed or that the conduct was disorderly.
• It was argued that the earlier findings related to a different date and were thus irrelevant to the offence charged.
• The appellant maintained that witnesses must personally attest to being alarmed or annoyed for a breach of the peace to be established.

Court's Response to Arguments

• The court found that the repeated act of peering into a lit room through a curtain slit late at night, especially returning to do so after walking away, warranted an inference of disorderly conduct.
• The apprehension and actions of the women, including one who summoned the police out of fear of her husband's reaction, demonstrated that the conduct was likely to cause alarm and annoyance.
• The court rejected the necessity of direct testimony of personal alarm or annoyance, holding that acts calculated to cause such feelings suffice for breach of the peace.
• The timing (11:50 P.M.) and duration of the peering (two to three minutes on each occasion) were significant factors in assessing the nature of the conduct.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Ferguson v. Carnochan	Definition of breach of the peace as a breach of public order and decorum, accompanied by alarm and annoyance of the public.	The court relied on Lord M'Laren's dictum from this case, interpreting "order and decorum" as "order or decorum," and affirming that acts calculated to cause alarm and annoyance suffice to constitute breach of the peace.
Macdonald (at p. 137)	The principle that many acts may or may not constitute breach of the peace depending on circumstances, occasion, and place.	The court applied this principle to conclude that peeping through a curtain slit into a lighted room late at night is a circumstance that can amount to breach of the peace.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the accused's conduct within the framework of breach of the peace as a form of disorderly conduct that disrupts public order or decorum. It emphasized that the offence is context-dependent, considering how the act was done, the surrounding circumstances, and the particular occasion and place. The repeated peering into a lit room through a curtain slit late at night was deemed immodest and calculated to annoy or alarm modest women in the street.

The court gave weight to the fact that one witness, an invalid woman, was sufficiently upset to summon the police, fearing violent reprisals from her husband. The court rejected the requirement that witnesses must personally testify to their alarm or annoyance, holding that acts calculated to cause such feelings are sufficient. The timing, repetition, and duration of the accused's conduct led the court to conclude that the police had adequate grounds for prosecution and that the police judge's finding of breach of the peace was properly supported by the facts.

Holding and Implications

The court held in the affirmative that the facts found were sufficient to justify the conclusion that the accused committed a breach of the peace. The conviction was upheld on the basis that the conduct was disorderly and likely to cause alarm and annoyance to the public.

The decision directly affirms the validity of the police judge's finding without setting new legal precedent. It underscores that repeated acts of peeping into a private dwelling late at night may constitute breach of the peace even absent direct testimony of alarm or disturbance by witnesses.