Bound over to keep the peace ?
Discussion
to me thats assult,he also resisted arrest but wasn't charged with that 
Section 115 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 provides magistrates' courts with the power to order a person to be "bound over" to keep the peace and / or be of good behaviour towards a particular person (often a neighbour or partner) who has complained about their behaviour. Any failure to comply with the conditions of an order is similar to committing an offence.
115(1) The power of a magistrates’ court on the complaint of any person to adjudge any other person to enter into a recognizance, with or without sureties, to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour towards the complainant shall be exercised by order on complaint.
115(2) Where a complaint is made under this section, the power of the court to remand the defendant under subsection (5) of section 55 shall not be subject to the restrictions imposed by subsection (6) of that section.
115(3) If any person ordered by a magistrates’ court under subsection (1) above to enter into a recognizance, with or without sureties, to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour fails to comply with the order, the court may commit him to custody for a period not exceeding six months or until he sooner complies with the order.
Note
The law and practice for dealing with bind overs may require re-examination in the light of the adverse decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Hashman and Harrup v United Kingdom (1999) Times, 1 December, ECtHR where the notion of "good behaviour" was found to breach the European Convention on Human Rights because it was too vague and uncertain. Any future orders made on this basis alone might be subject to challenge. In the case of Steel v United Kingdom (1998) 28 EHRR 603 it was held that the concept of breach of the peace had been clarified by the English courts to the extent that it was sufficiently established that a breach of the peace was committed only when a person caused harm, or appeared likely to cause harm, to persons or property or acted in a manner the natural consequence of which was to provoke others to violence. It was a procedure which came within the ambit of the Human Rights Convention and is lawful so long as the action taken is proportionate to the nature of the disturbance and also having regard to the values of freedom of expression and assembly.
Notwithstanding that for some purposes proceedings under Section 115 are treated as criminal proceedings, since the procedure is by way of complaint it is primarily a civil process. The jurisdiction of the justices does not depend on a summons being issued, nor does the absence of a complaint in the form prescribed invalidate the procedure
Where proceedings under Section 115 are conducted by the Crown Prosecution Service by virtue of Section 3(2)(c) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and the complaint is dismissed, there is no power to award defence costs against the Crown Prosecution Service but an order for costs may be made against the complainant. Please see R v Coventry Magistrates’ Court, ex p Crown Prosecution Service (1996) 160 JP 741,[1996] Crim LR 723.
115(1) The power of a magistrates’ court on the complaint of any person to adjudge any other person to enter into a recognizance, with or without sureties, to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour towards the complainant shall be exercised by order on complaint.
115(2) Where a complaint is made under this section, the power of the court to remand the defendant under subsection (5) of section 55 shall not be subject to the restrictions imposed by subsection (6) of that section.
115(3) If any person ordered by a magistrates’ court under subsection (1) above to enter into a recognizance, with or without sureties, to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour fails to comply with the order, the court may commit him to custody for a period not exceeding six months or until he sooner complies with the order.
Note
The law and practice for dealing with bind overs may require re-examination in the light of the adverse decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Hashman and Harrup v United Kingdom (1999) Times, 1 December, ECtHR where the notion of "good behaviour" was found to breach the European Convention on Human Rights because it was too vague and uncertain. Any future orders made on this basis alone might be subject to challenge. In the case of Steel v United Kingdom (1998) 28 EHRR 603 it was held that the concept of breach of the peace had been clarified by the English courts to the extent that it was sufficiently established that a breach of the peace was committed only when a person caused harm, or appeared likely to cause harm, to persons or property or acted in a manner the natural consequence of which was to provoke others to violence. It was a procedure which came within the ambit of the Human Rights Convention and is lawful so long as the action taken is proportionate to the nature of the disturbance and also having regard to the values of freedom of expression and assembly.
Notwithstanding that for some purposes proceedings under Section 115 are treated as criminal proceedings, since the procedure is by way of complaint it is primarily a civil process. The jurisdiction of the justices does not depend on a summons being issued, nor does the absence of a complaint in the form prescribed invalidate the procedure
Where proceedings under Section 115 are conducted by the Crown Prosecution Service by virtue of Section 3(2)(c) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and the complaint is dismissed, there is no power to award defence costs against the Crown Prosecution Service but an order for costs may be made against the complainant. Please see R v Coventry Magistrates’ Court, ex p Crown Prosecution Service (1996) 160 JP 741,[1996] Crim LR 723.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff