Section 5(1) provides: In February 2014 Parliament passed a redaction of the statute which removed the word "insulting" in subsections "a" and "b" following pressure from citizens.
Glidewell LJ said: I find nothing in the context of the Act of 1986 to persuade me that a police officer may not be a person who is caused harassment, alarm or distress by the various kinds of words and conduct to which section 5(1) applies.
That is a question of fact for the justices to be decided in all the circumstances, the time, the place, the nature of the words used, who the police officers are, and so on.In Southard v DPP [2006] EWHC 3449 (Admin), [2006] All ER (D) 101, Fulford J. said "I see no basis for the original written argument that this criminal provision is not available when police officers alone are the likely audience or target.
", although the court acknowledged the tide is slowly turning on such incidents: "Finally, although the court considered that the facts of this case came near to the borderline as to whether the ingredients of the offence were made out, it is clear that they concluded" Holloway v DPP (Admn 21 Oct 2004) Ref: [2004] EWHC 2621 (Admin)) also states that a charge relying on the fact that someone "might have, or could have seen" the conduct is insufficient, compared to whether or not anyone actually did.
Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 creates the distinct, aggravated offence of intentional harassment, alarm or distress.
Section 31(1)(c) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37) creates the distinct offence of racially or religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress.