Driver's actions short of following not breach of peace: appeal court
A car driver's conviction for breach of the peace has been quashed where it was held that her proved actions did not amount to following the two complainers and there was no other conduct found that might give rise to the prospect of serious disturbance.
Three appeal court judges allowed the appeal by a woman referred to as AM, who was convicted on a complaint by the procurator fiscal at Kilmarnock after trial in the JP court.
It was found on the evidence that AM, a parent of children at a primary school, had had an altercation with two classroom assistants at a school book fair, which the assistants had reported to school management. Afterwards as the assistants left the school, AM was driving past the playground. She turned a corner so as to drive slowly towards the assistants walking in the opposite direction, passed them, turned and came back past them, then turned a corner and left the area. Both assistants were alarmed; one felt anxious and frightened and the other intimidated and scared.
Giving the court's judgment Lord Brodie, who sat with Lord Drummond Young and Temporary Judge Mhairi Stephen QC, said it was not determinative that the complainers were actually alarmed. It was not charged, and not disclosed, what had happened at the book fair, and the context was limited to what appeared in the findings in fact.
"With all respect to the justices," he continued, "it is our opinion that they have erred in relation to both matters which require to be demonstrated to establish a case of breach of the peace: that the conduct complained of was severe enough to cause alarm to any reasonable person and to threaten serious disturbance to the community."
The conduct complained of had occurred over a relatively short period of time; AM did not get out of her car; there wasw no raised voice, shouting or swearing, or threat of violence. There was no revving of the engine or honking of the horn. There was no staring. "In these circumstances", he concluded, "we would regard the prospect of serious disturbance to the community as being remote. In our opinion, whatever else may be said about the appellant’s conduct, it did not, on the basis of the justices’ findings in fact, justify a conviction of breach of the peace."