A simply enough question you might think, but one that has given rise to quite a lot of case law over the years, including a ruling from the High Court on 17th November, which has sparked fury in the newspapers today.

Last week’s case is Harvey v Director of Public Prosecutions, AC, 17 November 2011, and the facts are as follows:

Harvey was part of a group standing in the public area of a block of flats. The police wished to search Harvey and he objected in these terms:

"Fuck this, I haven't been smoking anything."

He was warned as to his behaviour and threatened with an arrest under s5 Public Order Act 1996. Following the search, which revealed nothing Harvey said: "I told you you wouldn't find fuck all."

He was further warned, and in response to a question to give his full name he replied: " I have already fucking told you."

He was then arrested for a section 5 offence, and subsequently convicted before the Magistrates’ Court.

So, why all the fuss today? This is due to the fact that the High Court overturned that conviction. But why? Is it the case that swearing at police officers (and others) is now legal? Or something else?

The first thing to point out is that however unattractive the language might be, swearing per se is not a criminal offence. The section 5 offence is concerned with words or behaviour that are said within the hearing of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

The conviction was overturned for the following reasons:

1. The Crown Prosecution Service adduced no evidence at all from the officers that the words had caused them harassment, alarm or distress. The court noted that police officers in particular regrettably hear this language all too frequently as part of their job and are less likely to be affected by it. The case of Southard v DPP is on point.

2. The same could be said, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, in relation to the group of young people assembled at the time.

3. There was no evidence that any other persons (eg neighbours) heard the exchange.

So, this case is not a licence for people to cause police officers harassment, alarm or distress through the use of bad language, it simply reflects the reality that many people, particularly police officers who hear this day in day out, will find it more boorish than alarming. Everything depends on context however and the courts have not, despite what the press are reporting this morning, given people a free reign to abuse police officers.

Should swearing at a police officer be illegal? Maybe so, but that is a matter for parliament to decide, not the courts.

Courtesy of @Crimedaily on Twitter.

There is much debate about the age of criminal responsibility in England. The current age in England is 10, but is 10 an age where children are aware of what is criminally right and wrong and what they believe is just being naughty? At the age of 10 are children too young to face trial and should the age of criminal responsibility be raised?

At the age of 10 all children have different rates of maturity development. Some children will understand the differences between right and wrong whereas others will not have an understanding or even know what the possible consequences of committing a crime may be. Most children, when prosecuted, don’t know themselves why they have committed a crime and in some cases wouldn’t have even been aware that what they were doing was criminal. Due to their immaturity they are also unable to provide a defence for themselves in court as they have no capacity to fully understand what they have done wrong. Minor offences which are committed by children are criminalised when a child may just feel like they are being naughty, not criminal. So how can a child refrain from committing a crime when they are unaware that what they are doing is criminal? Children are tried using the same procedure as adults, although it’s not done as harshly it can still be seen as unfair if they do not fully understand why they were wrong in the first instance. This is not the only problem when trying children in court. The language used in the court room can be complicated and hard to understand and very few do, making it harder for them to see what they have done wrong. However not all children are prosecuted as the police do have a discretion as to whether they prosecute and most of the time they don’t. The number of children under 13 appearing in court is minimal however it is good for children to be aware that at the age of 10 there is a possibility of prosecution for committing a crime.