Public Nuisance which the Teenage Youngsters Commit in the Neighbourhood - Essay Example

Human Rights Critical analysis of case study: Introduction: In this case, the main part that needs to be considered is public nuisance which the rowdy teenage youngsters commit in the neighbourhood, thus disturbing peaceful enjoyment and living of the local pensioners, although there is nothing illegal about it. In this case study, the fact that defendants were indulging in rowdy conduct may be accepted, but this, by itself, may not by itself be seen as a crime. It could be seen in terms of creating annoyance at night in area where pensioners reside after drinking alcohol, showing undisciplined public conduct, switching on loud music and disturbing the general peace of the locality. However, their actions fall short of criminal acts or violence, which are recognised as punishable offences under UK laws. It is seen that youth have infringed human rights by giving cause for complaints by local pensioners to law enforcement agencies and other concerned authorities regarding their night activities. Even family members of the resident pensioners have booked complaints regarding the youth on a number of occasions. But no action was yet forthcoming, although they were regularly committing nuisance in the locality. Human Rights Act 1998: Under Article 11 of UK Human Rights Act 1998, which relates to freedom of assembly and association under subsection 1, it is seen that “everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others.” (Article 11: Freedom of Assembly and Association). An interpretation of this section could be in terms of fact that it is possible that this article shall not circumvent enforcement of legal limits on enforcement of these rights by members of the law or others, “in case this is necessarily prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safely, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” (Article 8: Right to Respect for Private and Family Life). Powell and Rayner v United Kingdom (1990) 12 EHRR 355: In this case, the applicant filed a case regarding noise pollution from Heathrow Airport, Section 76(1) of the Civil Aviation Act (CVA)1982, which enforce a “statutory bar” on action being brought against noise pollution caused by aircrafts flying across Heathrow Airport was arbitrary and one sided. Their complaint was that this provision substantially annulled their privilege to seek recompense in Civil Courts under Section 6 of the Act. (Furse and Nash 2002, p.80). The Lower Court ruled that no civil wrong emerged under English law, since culpable offence could only considered if the aircraft had violated flying regulations. However, even when the case reached a higher Court, it held that the main contention was the applicability, or otherwise of Section 76(1) and the question of Article 6(1) did not arise. As far as Section 76(1) of CVA 1982 was concerned, it is seen that certain circumstances denied aircraft carriers from liability under law, “Therefore, there was no civil right recognised under domestic law to attract the application under Article 6(1). (Furse and Nash 2002, p.39). The next critical aspect that emerges in this case study is whether youngsters could be held liable for “Breach of the peace.” In the case of Regina v.Howell [1982] it is seen that Howell was placed under arrest after he was seen shouting and using swear words. His arrest was considered not against the law, even though he could not be booked under any specific wrongdoings, or on reasonable expectation of breach of the peace. “There was a power to arrest for threatened as well as actual breach of the peace, and that, in any event, a threat of violence was sufficient to constitute a breach of the peace.” (Regina v Howell. (Errol). 1981). Thus it is seen that where law enforcement authorities are of the opinion that defendant’s behaviour constitutes an offence, present or future, they are at liberty to arrest or apprehend the defendant, with or without an arrest warrant. The fundamental aspects regarding breach of the peace could be seen in terms of decided cases set forth the following criteria: 1. There needs to be credible situations and the presence of potential breach of calm that could rationalise the final efforts to deprive the freedom of a person who was not acting within the ambit of law 2. The origin of potential challenge is arrested person 3. The conduct visibly infringes the right of others 4. The acts of third parties are natural consequence of such acts 5. The circumstances of case did not warrant such aggressive conduct, and 6. The behaviour of the person was not rational or logical consequence. Applying Regina v. Howell (1981) decision in this context, it is seen that concept of breach of peace has limited application. This is because, to establish breach of peace, it is necessary that material harm need to be established, but in this case, it is seen that no harm has occurred, either to physical being or property of the pensioners. It is often seen that the cause of punitive action by courts would depend upon circumstances of the case and the justifications put forth by the parties. In this case, the case would revolve on how courts views material wrongs that has been committed by defendants, the degree of such wrong and what has happened as a result of such material wrongs. Complaints can be entertained, only the extent material damages, or injuries, either to physical being or properties of the applicants does take place. However, it could be said that matter of breach of the peace is a matter that begets subjective analysis and interpretation. Moreover, it is also contextual in that Courts may agree for breach in one case, but may not do so for another. This is because Courts, in this case may be more concerned about the actual or future materials wrongs, as such, and not troubles caused by young people. Disturbances turning into breach of the peace: The question of when disturbance become breach of peace is when conditions are potentially unknown and need preventative steps to avoid getting out of control. The duty to preserve tranquillity is not to restrain oneself from irritating neighbours with loud music, or other unruly conduct, but to refrain from aggressive, quarrelsome or other conduct, or facts that are likely to motivate such action. In this case however, it is seen that there are only disturbances, and no crime or illegal activity is evident. The youngsters did not commit anything illegal, but there are reasons for the law enforcement to believe that such disturbances could be a potential breach of the peace and cause detriment in the neighbourhood in future. Further, this is not a single incident, and many complaints have been lodged in the past by the residents with civic and administrative authorities but of no avail. Again it is seen that the certainty of potential harm that such actions could evoke in future are in the area of uncertainty, since no person, could predict that action of a person could give rise to cognisable and punishable action. The probability that adolescents, in this case, would assault residents, or rob them, is at best, remote, but not impossible. It would be rather implausible for the police to arrest them for circumventing future crimes, which may or may not happen. Moreover, it is seen that no material losses, harm or injury happened to the residents. Arrests need to consider potential threats of future illegalities: The lesson to be derived from various cases are that the powers to arrest, etc, on the basis of a feared breach of the peace do not essentially provide any contravention of privileges under European Convention laws, and it is perfectly just on the part of the police to arrest potential lawbreakers, provided robust reasons and cause of action is available. The various decisions made by English courts seem to suggest strongly that such powers should only be used where conduct of defendants produces real risk of chaos or disorderly conduct. Where fundamental conduct of defendants are within the ambit of the law, the sheer fact that others may remonstrate against it does not, by itself create cause for legal action, or provoke an arrest, or enforcement. Misconduct without criminal intent is not a cognisable offence: In this case study, the fact that defendants were indulging in rowdy conduct may be accepted; but this, by itself is not illegal or in violation of any laws. However, applying the decision in R v Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Constabulary ex parte Central Electricity Generating Board [1981] 3 All ER 26, Judge Denning observed that “if protesters prevent the execution of lawful business, then a police officer would be justified in anticipating a breach of the peace, and could arrest them.” (Rv Cc Devon ex p CEGB (1981). 2006). Conclusion: The main issue in this case would dwell on when the aspect of disturbance, (which is within the ambit of legality) turns into breach of peace (a cognizable offense). While this is a subject matter of legal jurisprudence which Courts would perceive with the degree of harm indulged in and its potential fall-outs, it is necessary to take an objective view of the case in terms of the extent of damages that could be invoked and also whether the need for arrest of alleged offenders is necessary under given circumstances. For one thing, there has been no abusive language or assault on anybody, injury or losses to any of the denizens. However, it is also seen that the attitude and conduct of the defendants could be seen as future threats to peace and safety of the place. It is well within the powers of the law enforcement officers to get a court injunction banning the present activities of the group, failing which they could get arrest warrants in order to prevent them in their nefarious activities. Alternatively, it is also possible for the residents to offer a legal petition to the concerned juvenile centre to have them sentenced to appropriate terms in such centres for rehabilitation and correctional treatments. Bibliography Article 8: Right to Respect for Private and Family Life. [online]. OPSI: Office of Public Sector Information. P.3. Last accessed 21 January 2009 at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/ukpga_19980042_en_3 Article 11: Freedom of Assembly and Association. [online]. OPSI: Office of Public Sector Information. P.3. Last accessed 21 January 2009 at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/ukpga_19980042_en_3 FURSE, Mark., and NASH, Susan. (2002). [online]. Essential Human Rights Cases. P.39. Last accessed 21 January 2009 at: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=L0usIYLOMGsC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=Powell+and+Rayner+v+United+Kingdom+(1990)+12+EHRR+355&source=web&ots=GIcfVImGan&sig=Rm2OsEOC3Br5aDu0I-yfSXCP6wA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA39,M1 FURSE, Mark., and NASH, Susan. (2002). Powell and Rayner v United Kingdom. [online]. Essential Human Rights Cases. P.80. Last accessed 21 January 2009 at: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=L0usIYLOMGsC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=Powell+and+Rayner+v+United+Kingdom+(1990)+12+EHRR+355&source=web&ots=GIcfVImGan&sig=Rm2OsEOC3Br5aDu0I-yfSXCP6wA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA80,M1 Regina v Howell. (Errol). (1981). [online]. Last accessed 21 January 2009 at: http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/arrested_rights/Regina_Howell.htm Rv Cc Devon ex p CEGB (1981). (2006). [online]. The K-Zone: Wasting Your Internet Bandwidth Since 1994. Last accessed 21 January 2009 at: http://www.kevinboone.com/lawglos_RVCCDevonExPCEGB1981.html Read More