DPP v COSKUN ( 2026 ) EWHC 427 ( Admin ) holds that whether conduct (1) amounted to DISORDERLY BEHAVIOUR and (2) was “ likely” to cause a person HARASSMENT. ALARM or DISTRESS are SEPARATE AND DISTINCT QUESTIONS. Each is a question of fact, to be judged objectively. Moreover, a conviction may represent a necessary and proportionate interference with ECHR Article 10 freedom of expression rights, which extend beyond written or spoken words to “expressive acts”.
Subscribe
Get an email when we publish a new post on this blog. We’ll never share your email and you can unsubscribe any time. Our use of your details is explained in our privacy policy.
"*" indicates required fields
Headings
- Best Value (13)
- Capital Finance and Companies (61)
- Council Tax and Rates (87)
- Decision making and Contracts (293)
- Elections and Bylaws (38)
- Environment, Highways and Leisure (134)
- General (20)
- Housing (165)
- Human Rights and Public Sector Equality Duty (123)
- Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation (254)
- Land, Goods and Services (83)
- Local Authority Powers (75)
- Non Judicial Control (21)
- Planning and Environmental (192)
- Social Care (86)
- Standards (26)
Disclaimer
This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.
Comments are closed.
11KBW, 11 King’s Bench Walk, Temple, London EC4Y 7EQ | Tel: 020 7632 8500 | © 11KBW 2026