Public Order Offence for saying words deemed offensive?

[NancyDrawed]

I am not familiar with the complexities of law and the spoken word, but I do remember Justice Julian Knowles saying that we don't have the right to be offended in one of the Harry Miller cases regarding Non Crime Hate Incidents. So if police forces can no longer use NCHIs to stifle freedom of speech / belief / opinion it appears that Public Order Offence is something else they are going to try to use.

I cannot believe that the Police have called this vulnerable woman in for an interview - twitter thread below

https://twitter.com/BretteDutton/status/1655361519830401024

Of course. Some patients are detained under the MHA for years.

I know that, but they’re not considered dwellings under the law imho. After all in Le Vine v. DPP [2010] EWHC 1128 (Admin), a communal laundry room in sheltered accommodation was found not to form part of a dwelling, so I’d think a kitchen area in a psychiatric hospital would be very similar to that.

In Le Vine, the laundry room was in a different part of the building, separate to the defendant’s self-contained flat, which is consistent with the P. O. Act’s exclusion of communal landings etc from ‘dwelling’. In the current case, the alleged offender was confined to a certain area which she could not leave. That seems significantly different.

If the Act applied, people detained under the MHA would arguably be deprived of a right that everyone else has - freedom of expression (within lawful limits but outside the Public Order Act) in their dwelling place.

The common thread on exclusions is…common areas! It says it was a “common kitchen” which would be to my mind a common area. Just like a common landing or a common laundry.

people detained under the MHA would arguably be deprived of a right that everyone else has yes that’s kind of the point of a detention under the MHA isn’t it though? As quite a few rights are stripped from you when you’re detained due to lack of mental capacity. So, what is one more right? (Not saying I’m in favour, just that’s the reality).

In the current case, the alleged offender was confined to a certain area which she could not leave. That seems significantly different.

If it is significant, it would not be in favour of a common kitchen being considered part of a dwelling as even a police cell was found to not be part of a dwelling in DPP v Francis [2006] EWCA Crim 3323.

You aren’t detained under the MHA due to lacking capacity- that would be the MCA/DOLS. Some people held under the MHA do lack capacity but many don’t.

And I don’t get your point about deprivation of rights being part of the point of detention under the MHA. You can only lawfully be deprived of such rights as are necessary to fulfil the purpose of the detention (E.g. protect you from self harm). It’s not a carte blanche to deprive you of other rights - that would be horrifying.

I didn’t say MHA detentions themselves were due to lacking mental capacity, I said that rights are stripped from you when you are detained due to lacking mental capacity. So, detained under MHA + lacking mental capacity then = having various rights stripped away. (Such as the right to refuse treatment.)

You don’t get how involuntary detention is a loss of a right in itself? The fact that you are confined against your will, which if it were anyone else would be criminal kidnap? Um ok.

And I did not say or imply anything about a “carte blanche” to deprive you of rights. I said that you are stripped of rights, plural, which is true.

You don’t get how involuntary detention is a loss of a right in itself? The fact that you are confined against your will, which if it were anyone else would be criminal kidnap? Um ok

It’s disingenuous to suggest I said that. I said:
You can only lawfully be deprived of such rights as are necessary to fulfil the purpose of the detention

It’s also disingenuous for you to claim that you “did not say or imply anything about a “carte blanche” to deprive you of rights”

You said
that’s kind of the point of a detention under the MHA isn’t it though? As quite a few rights are stripped from you when you’re detained due to lack of mental capacity. So, what is one more right?

If your only recourse is to misrepresent what both you and I said, then I’m guessing you’re out of actual arguments.

You are also incorrect to say:
rights are stripped from you when you are detained due to lacking mental capacity

You do not lose any rights under the MHA due to lacking capacity. There is a hefty amount of case law around this, particularly focusing on consent to medical treatment for conditions other than the one for which the patient is subject to the MHA.

Lucy

You said “I don’t get your point about deprivation of rights being part of the point of detention under the MHA.” My response to that was “You don’t get how detention is a loss of a right in itself?” I don’t know why you are thinking I was responding to a completely different sentence, could be the late hour and fatigue.

If your only recourse is to misrepresent what both you and I said, then I’m guessing you’re out of actual arguments

It feels like you’re misconstruing things I have posted again it is late so perhaps you are not at your best? All the relevant arguments for the thread are long since closed since you’ve been corrected earlier in the thread by several posters on police interview procedures, public order offences, and the definition of a dwelling.

So now we seem to be arguing about, well you claiming I’ve said things I did not say, and then “correcting” me.

For example.I didn’t say or imply carte blanche of stripping rights. I stated rights were stripped plural. That’s not saying or implying that any number of rights can be stripped capriciously and unreasonably, which is what carte blanche is. I made a factual statement that when you are detained under the MHA rights can be stripped from you due to lack of mental capacity. That is a fact. That is all I said. You took that statement and decided to balloon it into something else entirely by tacking on carte blanche and then pretending to correct me. Sorry, but you can’t correct me on something I did not say no matter how much you my wish to have a go at it or me.

You do not lose any rights under the MHA due to lacking capacity
You are (once again) incorrect. I was correct and my example, regarding loss of right to refuse treatment is also correct:
“If you're held under the Mental Health Act, you can be treated against your will. This is because it's felt you do not have sufficient capacity to make an informed decision about your treatment at the time.”
https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/social-care-and-your-rights/mental-health-and-the-law/mental-health-act/

The PNN is being phased out. You can email with or without the PNN now.

Having a shouting match with another patient in a mental health ward shouldn’t be a public order offence, even if truly horrible things are said. If the statement about what was said was true, it wasn’t a credible threat or anything that requires intervention by the authorities. If it was a one off, it wasn’t harassment either.

I wish we could return to the days when the police were allowed to apply common sense, rather than (supposedly) being obliged to carry out an investigation and interviews for every single accusation made. Horrible things can easily be said in the heat of the moment and the strain of receiving this, on someone who is already vulnerable and has been self-harming and suicidal to the point of hospitalization is horrendous. She should not be placed under this stress without very good reason and I very much doubt this is warranted.

Some of the quibbling by a PP on this thread is weird.

Summarising:

"It's not on headed paper" - Yes it is.

"The email address format is wrong" - No it isn't.

"Her name was not on the envelope - that's suspicious" - Mistakes happen. Or maybe it was a window envelope. Big deal.

"It's in the US" - No - the US friend is quote-tweeting the tweet by her friend in the UK:
https://twitter.com/pokedauxll/status/1655321686063849475

"She's mad, she made it up" - WTAF!!

"Why is she only posting about it on May 7th when the letter is dated 24th May?" - Maybe posting a call for help on Twitter was not the first thing that came to mind?

"Stupid fake…. All over Twitter" (verbatim) - OK. Show us the other examples "All over Twitter".

Is this sort of extreme scepticism, to the point of fabricating objections, now something we can expect on FWR for anything involving the magic combination of police + trans?

The legal back and forth between other PPs is very interesting and illuminating though!

The only thing I am amazed by is that both NHS and police bureaucracy leapt into action so quickly, such that a letter could have been typed up by the police on the 24th, after the night of the incident on the 23rd, and was apparently received on the 25th?

There are relevant tweets about the woman's history in this thread which I don't think have been mentioned:
https://twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1655468948924538880

This tweet specifically, where someone has searched her timeline and taken screenshots:
https://twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1655510850000547841