Case Analysis : Baig V. Harvie

849 Words4 Pages
BAIG V. HARVIE

A. THE FACTS

Mirza Baig was charged under section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 where he had acted aggressively towards two parking attendants over a parking ticket. The accused was charged but appealed his case. One of the parking attendants, Mr Brown, gave the appellant a parking ticket. The appellant reacted aggressively towards Mr Brown and quickly became verbally abusive. He shouted obscene words towards Mr Brown, such as ‘stick it up your a[**]e’. The appellant took this further by stating that he was going to follow them . The sheriff found that "The appellants behaviour was not, in the particular circumstances, reasonable."

The appeal was refused, stating it agreed with all
…show more content…
They further cited their defence within s.38(2) , but this was not the defence used, as they did not have enough evidence.

C. RELATION TO S.38

The court believed ‘The test in s.38 was easily met.’ S.38 referred to Paterson v. Harvie in which Justice-General Gill stated that s. 38 puts forward the actus reus and mens rea in the offence – that they must have acted in a threatening or abusive way and had intent to do so. Baig had committed the actus reus of test, behaving in an abusive and threatening way that would 've caused any reasonable person to feel fear and alarm.

Baig acted in a way that was likely to cause someone fear or alarm and that he had intended to do so, providing the mens rea, completing the test. S.38(2) further states it is a defence if the accused’s behaviour could be proved as reasonable. The argument put forward by the court was whether the appellant 's actions were conveyed to be reasonable. The question as to whether Baig acted as any reasonable person would is cause for debate. However, I find it to be self-explanatory – that it was in no means reasonable. Baig continued to follow the two parking attendants around , leading to the decision that his behaviour was inexcusable and fits into the requirements of S.38 .

D. RELEVANCY OF OFFENCE OF THREATENING AND ABUSIVE BEHAVIOUR?

Where breach of the peace was unclear, the offence of threatening or abusive behaviour came

    More about Case Analysis : Baig V. Harvie

      Get Access