Church protestor with ‘God hates Catholics’ placard loses appeal against ‘abusive behaviour’ conviction

A “peaceful protestor” found guilty of a statutory breach of the peace for standing outside a church while holding a placard which read “God hates Catholics” on one side and “God hates the Kirk” on the other has had an appeal against his conviction dismissed.

 

The Sheriff Appeal Court refused the appeal by David Orr after ruling that the appellant’s behaviour was “abusive” and “likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm”.

 

Sheriff Principal Marysia Lewis, sitting with Sheriff Principal Craig Turnbull and Appeal Sheriff Peter Braid, heard that he appellant was convicted following a trial of a contravention of section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, aggravated by religious prejudice.

 

 

The court was told that shortly after 9am on Sunday 26 February 2017, various members of the public telephoned or called at the public counter of the main police office in Paisley, complaining about, or reporting, the behaviour of the appellant, who was then standing outside St Mirin’s Cathedral.

 

Police officers attended the cathedral and observed the appellant standing outside the main gate as several church-goers entered the building ahead of mass starting at 10am.

 

The bishop and a member of the public were seen standing beside the appellant, who was seen holding a placard, approximately three feet by three feet in size, which in large lettering bore the words “God hates Catholics”, while the other side of placard bore the words “God hates the Kirk”.

 

The appellant said it was a “peaceful protest” and that he was not there to cause violence, and handed over the placard upon being asked to do so by the attending police officers.

 

The appellant appealed against his conviction, arguing that his conduct did not constitute a breach of section 38(1) of the 2010 Act, which states that a person commits an offence if they behaves in a threatening or abusive manner, the behaviour would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm, and intend to cause fear or alarm or is reckless as to whether the behaviour would cause fear or alarm.

 

It was submitted that the sheriff had erred in holding that the appellant’s conduct was abusive and likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear and alarm, but the court held that the appellant’s conduct could only be characterised as “abusive”.

 

 

Delivering the opinion of the court, Sheriff Principal Turnbull said: “Here, the appellant stood outside a place of worship, shortly before a religious service was scheduled to begin, conveying to all who could read his sign a message that was the antithesis of that which those attending the service believed. God’s love is a matter of considerable significance to followers of Christian religions. 

 

“Even leaving that aside, the appellant’s sign conveyed the message that all those attending the service (in other words, on a Sunday morning at that location, most of those reading the sign) were hated. In that context, it is perhaps worth noting that (unlike the message on the other side of the placard) the message was aimed directly at the persons likely to be reading it. Such behaviour is unacceptable in a tolerant, civilised society.”

 

The court also held that the hypothetical reasonable person could be alarmed by the appellant’s behaviour, having observed that his conduct was such that it caused a number of people to contact the police.

 

Sheriff Principal Turnbull added: “That in itself, although not conclusive, is a pointer towards alarm. The fact that there was no violence or aggression displayed by any person at the locus is immaterial. [T]he essence of the statutory offence is that the appellant’s conduct is to be judged by an objective test in which the actual effect of the threatening or abusive behaviour on those who experience it is irrelevant. 

 

“The hypothetical reasonable person would, in our view, be alarmed by the appellant’s behaviour, given its timing and location. It was insulting to followers of the Roman Catholic faith. It had the potential to give rise to a confrontation outside a place of worship. 

 

“To the extent that the appellant may have had a genuine message which he wished to put across – that the Roman Catholic Church was not following God’s teaching – the placard in no way, shape or form conveyed that message.”

 

No issue was taken with the sheriff’s finding that the appellant was reckless as to whether his behaviour would cause fear or alarm, and accordingly, each of the three constituent elements of a charge under the statutory offence were satisfied.

 

The appellant, who was fined £400, payable by instalments of £20 per week, also appealed against his sentence, claiming that the disposal was “excessive” in the whole circumstances of the case, but the appeal sheriffs rejected that argument.

 

The court stated: “Having regard to the appellant’s personal circumstances, including his previous convictions (and the procurator fiscal fine imposed in September 2016 for an analogous matter), it cannot be maintained that the sentence imposed is such as to constitute a miscarriage of justice. The sentence imposed fell well within the discretion available to the sheriff.”