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.