Section 4A Public Order Act 1986

[WhiskyDisco]

Hi all,

I've just spoken to my 67 year old Mum who's received a court summons for breach of Section 4A Public Order Act 1986. She had an argument with her neighbour about parking. He swore at her, so she called him a few names. This was last August.

Today she received a court summons to appear at Magistrates court next month. I haven't been over to look at the paperwork but as you can imagine she's a little distressed. I have also Googled the act and see that the punishment can be up to 6 months with an unlimited fine.

I'm a bit confused in that I thought that in order to break the law the police must have been involved. Who has decided that she is in breach of this particular law?

She is adamant that she will 'have her day in court' and that she doesn't need representation as 'she's done nothing wrong'. As far as she is concerned two adults had a disagreement over where her car was positioned and that some words were exchanged.

I'm going to go see her tonight, but wondered if anyone had any thoughts?

[stevensdrs]

Must be a prank.

[WhiskyDisco]

stevensdrs said:

Must be a prank.

That is one option. Another is that he's taken her to court for this criminal act himself. The other thing I didn't mention, is that he used to be a JP himself.

[anonymous-user]

See the paperwork first to see if it is a private prosecution (assuming you'll be able to tell from it).

[WhiskyDisco]

La Liga said:

See the paperwork first to see if it is a private prosecution (assuming you'll be able to tell from it).

Agreed. I thought it was going to be a private prosecution for defamation, but my Mum read out the act that it's been brought under (PO Act). I wasn't aware that a private prosecution was possible for a criminal act?

[agtlaw]

Get off the internet and seek professional legal advice.

[Pegscratch]

agtlaw said:

Get off the internet and seek professional legal advice.

This. At 86 it's unlikely to have any real bearing and they're unlikely to do anything but slap a moderate fine on, but it's worth putting some push back on.

[Kev_Mk3]

agtlaw said:

Get off the internet and seek professional legal advice.

This

[vaud]

Kev_Mk3 said:

agtlaw said:

Get off the internet and seek professional legal advice.

This

At the risk of repetition, this. ^^^^

[paintman]

WhiskyDisco said:

she doesn't need representation as 'she's done nothing wrong'.

Not a good idea.
As said by others she needs proper professional legal advice from one who specialises in criminal law.

[vaud]

paintman said:

Not a good idea.
As said by others she needs proper professional legal advice from one who specialises in criminal law.

Especially as "The other thing I didn't mention, is that he used to be a JP himself."

[paintman]

Who sometimes have a vastly over-inflated idea of their own importance - and their knowledge of the law.
'Pompous ass' is often a good description.

[anonymous-user]

WhiskyDisco said:

La Liga said:

See the paperwork first to see if it is a private prosecution (assuming you'll be able to tell from it).

Agreed. I thought it was going to be a private prosecution for defamation, but my Mum read out the act that it's been brought under (PO Act). I wasn't aware that a private prosecution was possible for a criminal act?

PP applies to criminal offences (with some exemptions).

Establishing that will allow you to at least do a bit of reading on it to approach professional legal advice with some knowledge of the matter / routes available.

Nothing wrong with discussing it on here whilst also taking legal advice in the real world before the 'get legal advice' gets copied and pasted another 30 times.

[meatballs]

At 67 considering it would be unlikely to be a very long sentence, am I the only one that would be tempted by the experience of a short jail stint..?

[take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey]

meatballs said:

At 67 considering it would be unlikely to be a very long sentence, am I the only one that would be tempted by the experience of a short jail stint..?

Not everyone harbours a prison sex fantasy.

[vaud]

meatballs said:

At 67 considering it would be unlikely to be a very long sentence, am I the only one that would be tempted by the experience of a short jail stint..?

Yes. You don't start in open prison...

[Red Devil]

WhiskyDisco said:

She is adamant that she will 'have her day in court' and that she doesn't need representation as 'she's done nothing wrong'.

I can understand that PoV but it is very unwise. Please persuade her to try and look at this objectively. A potential criminal record could result.
Exactly how it came about that she has received a summons is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that she is going to be up before the bench.
Take agtlaw's advice pdq. A simple search will show that he knows whereof he speaks. In the meantime, you may find this helpful - http://criminaldefence.info/section-4a-poa/

[adam quantrill]

>> A potential criminal record could result.

So what? Even an actual criminal record? At the age of 67, presumably she is already retired, so no potential or actual employer will care.

What's on the summons is it Crown vs Mrs X, or JP's name vs?

Anyway, being a retired JP is no great indicator of any expertise of the law.

[Bigends]

adam quantrill said:

>> A potential criminal record could result.

So what? Even an actual criminal record? At the age of 67, presumably she is already retired, so no potential or actual employer will care.

What's on the summons is it Crown vs Mrs X, or JP's name vs?

Anyway, being a retired JP is no great indicator of any expertise of the law.

This...the neighbour should be listed as the victim and the charges on the summons should povide time / date and place of the alleged offence

[meatballs]

take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:

meatballs said:

At 67 considering it would be unlikely to be a very long sentence, am I the only one that would be tempted by the experience of a short jail stint..?

Not everyone harbours a prison sex fantasy.

You brought it up bubba!