It seems like it was just the other day we had to lay down the law for light jumping cyclists. Today, and with a big H/T to Messrs Legal Cheek, we’re able to see the flip-side of the same old coin – motorists who don’t think cyclists have equal protection under the Road Traffic Act – or indeed the Public Order Act.
The trouble for this motorist is that he messed with the wrong barrister – see for yourselves.
We are told the motorist was convicted under the Public Order Act of using “threatening words or behaviour” – and because he appears to have made threats to kill, I’m guessing criminal proceedings were [eventually] brought under s4 of the Public Order Act 1986 which states:
A person is guilty of an offence if he –
(a) uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour
(b) …
with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person. or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.
The CPS Charging Guidelines don’t shed too much more light on the situation, so I’m not sure why there was an initial reluctance to charge under the POA on these facts (and evidence).
Now, what I would also like to know is why our motorist was not also charged with (at least) Driving Without Due Care and Attention (s3 RTA, 1988)? [Update: We are informed that in one cop’s view s3 RTA is, “Not so much” as the motorist appears only to be honking to get past.]
We salute Martin Porter QC for dominating the junction as he was supposed to – and for seeing this prosecution through.
As for everybody else:
Play nice out there, people. Someone ends up getting killed – or killing someone else – every day because people don’t think the law applies to them.