Key Facts
- •Debbie Hicks was convicted under s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 for threatening and abusive behaviour at Gloucester Royal Hospital.
- •Hicks filmed hospital staff, questioning their Covid-19 narrative and asserting she paid their wages.
- •Staff felt harassed, intimidated, and distressed by Hicks's behaviour and the potential for online abuse due to the filming.
- •Hicks argued her actions were 'guerrilla journalism' and a legitimate exercise of free speech.
- •The judge found Hicks's behaviour to be objectively threatening and abusive, considering the context (hospital, pandemic, filming).
Legal Principles
Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits threatening or abusive words or behaviour causing harassment, alarm, or distress.
Public Order Act 1986, s. 5
The meaning of 'threatening' or 'abusive' is a question of objective fact, considering the context and Article 10 ECHR.
Campaign Against Antisemitism v DPP [2019] EWHC 9 (Admin)
Article 10 ECHR protects freedom of expression but allows for restrictions necessary in a democratic society.
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 10
A proportionality assessment is generally not needed if the elements of the offence, construed compatibly with Article 10, are proven and the defence fails.
In Re Abortion Service (Safe Access Zones) (NI) Bill [2022] UKSC 32
Tone and demeanour, in addition to words, can be relevant to determining if behaviour is threatening or abusive.
Case law discussion, including analysis of the facts in this case.
Filming in the context of the incident took the case beyond the bounds of legitimate free speech
Analysis of the facts in this case
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The judge's findings of fact were supported by the evidence, and his conclusions of law were correct. Hicks's behaviour, particularly the filming, crossed the line from legitimate free speech to threatening and abusive conduct.