Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

R v Rimmington - 2006

337 words (1 pages) Case Summary

27th Jun 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK LawEU Law

R v Rimmington [2006] 1 AC 469

Public Nuisance –  Mens Rea – Definition of Offence of Public Nuisance


Rimmington, the defendant, sent 538 separate postal packages to individuals.  These were of a crude, racist and obscene nature, and were intended to cause mental anguish to black people in retaliation for a racially-motivated assault he had previously suffered.  After being arrested and charged with public nuisance, the defendant argued that the criminal offence of public nuisance was not defined precisely enough and was too uncertain to allow a prosecution under it to be in line with the European Convention on Human Rights or the Common law itself.  This was dismissed by the trial judge and he was convicted.  The Court of Appeal also dismissed this argument.  The defendant appealed to the House of Lords.


Was the criminal offence of public nuisance consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights?  Is the crime of public nuisance capable of precise definition and capable of being interpreted in a consistent manner?


The appeal was allowed.  Public nuisance was capable of a consistent definition, which could be stated as being committed when an individual does an act not warranted by law, or omits to discharge a legal duty if the effect of the act or omission is to endanger the life, health, property, morals, or comfort of the public or to obstruct the public in the exercise or enjoyment of rights common to all Her Majesty’s subjects.  However, the offence did require that the public, or some section of the public was intended to be affected by the act or omission and in this case, this had not happened.  Instead, the defendant had intended only each particular individual to be affected at any one time, and it was not permissible to multiply these separate instances of harm and call them a public injury.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "EU Law"

EU law, or European Union law, is a system of law that is specific to the 28 members of the European Union. This system overrules the national law of each member country if there is a conflict between the national law and the EU law.

Related Articles