Legal Method 103: Disorderly Conduct Case Analysis & Legal Opinion

This case study examines whether Ms. Test's behavior constitutes 'disorderly behavior' under Section 4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act, 1981, referencing the landmark case of Brooker v Police. The analysis applies the legal principles, emphasizing that 'disorderly behavior' requires a disruption of public order, not mere annoyance to individuals. The conclusion asserts that Ms. Test is not guilty of the alleged offense, as her actions did not disrupt public order but rather affected a neighbor due to personal circumstances. The study highlights that Section 4(1)(a) aims to maintain public order, not protect personal sensitivities, and the disruption must be greater than mere annoyance to obstruct ordinary public use, referencing the Brooker v Police case to support the conclusion. Desklib provides similar legal resources and solved assignments for students.

Civil Law
Table of Contents
1

Issues..........................................................................................................................................3
Relevant Law.............................................................................................................................3
Application of Law to Facts.......................................................................................................3
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................4
Bibliography...............................................................................................................................5
2

Issues
Does Ms. Test behaviour constitute ‘disorderly behaviour’ as mentioned in Section 4(1) (a) of
Summary Offenses Act, 19811?
Relevant Law
According to Section 4(1) (a) of Summary Offenses Act, 1981, a person is referred to as
exhibiting offensive behaviour if he/she behaves in a disorderly or offensive way in any
public space. The person who exhibits such behaviour is accountable to a fine not exceeding
$ 1000.
This section has been interpreted in the landmark case of Brooker v Police2, wherein it is held
that to establish ‘disorderly behaviour’ presence of a tendency in behaviour or in the effect of
words to disrupt public order needs to be proved. To prove ‘disorderly behaviour’
consideration will not be given to sensibilities of individuals against whom the behaviour is
performed. Mere annoyance is not enough there must be some disruption of public order.
Application of Law to Facts
In the instant case it can clearly be observed that the act of Ms. Test did not result in any
disruption in the ordinary activity of the public as clearly been confirmed by the police that
no public was around. The only complaint was by a neighbour of Ms. Key and Mr. Pipe who
felt disturbed due to his hindrance in sleep. It is to be noted here that he suffered such
disturbance due to his individual sensibilities and circumstance. No other resident in
neighbourhood complained of similar issue. Moreover, it has been mentioned in the case of
Brooker v Police3 that the disruption has to be of a magnitude greater than mere annoyance to
1 Summary Offenses Act, 1981
2 Brooker v Police [2007] NZSC 30
3Brooker v Police [2007] NZSC 30
3

individuals which obstructs its ordinary use by public, not just for an individual owing to his
personal or special circumstance.
It has caused mere annoyance to individuals against whom the behaviour was directed which
is Ms. Key and Mr. Pipe, which is well explained that it is outside the meaning of ‘disorderly
behaviour’ given in Section 4(1)(a) of Summary Offenses Act, 1981. Moreover, the threat
that Ms. Key felt by Ms. Test being outside house was by her presence not behaviour, hence
this does not affect the case in any way.
Conclusion
Restrictions can be imposed curtailing the right of freedom of expression in order to
safeguard interests like residential quiet or privacy, but Section 4(1) (a) of Summary Offenses
Act, 1981 is not designed for that purpose. The section is enacted for the purpose of
maintenance of public order not to protect personal sensitivities. To constitute ‘disorderly
behaviour’ there must be tendency to disrupt public order and not mere annoyance to
individuals. The act of Ms. Test has not caused disruption to public and has only affected a
neighbour of his deep sleep owing to his personal circumstance and to Ms. Key and Mr. Pipe
against whom the behaviour was directed. In light of the case Brooker v Police4, Ms. Test is
clearly not guilty of the alleged offense.
Bibliography
Brooker v Police, 60 (Supreme Court of New Zealand 2007).
4 Brooker v Police [2007] NZSC 30
4

Geddis, A. (2008). Brooker v Police. Retrieved May 28, 2019, from ResearchGate:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263212519_Brooker_V_Police
HRLC. (2007, May 25). Supreme Court of New Zealand Considers Interaction of Rights to
Privacy and Freedom of Expression. Retrieved May 28, 2019, from Human Rights
Law Centre: https://www.hrlc.org.au/human-rights-case-summaries/brooker-v-the-
police-2007-nzsc-30-4-may-2007
No Right Turn. (2007, May 04). A victory for the freedom to protest. Retrieved May 28,
2019, from Norightturn.blogspot.com:
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2007/05/victory-for-freedom-to-protest.html
5