Check your content against UK speech law frameworks

Home / Blog / Public Order Act Section 5 Explained: What Is Harassment, Alarm or Distress?

← Back to Blog

Public Order Act Section 5 Explained: What Is Harassment, Alarm or Distress?

Published 9 July 2026

You're outside a pub at closing time. You're arguing with a friend — loudly, colourfully. A police officer approaches and tells you to calm down. You keep going. The officer warns you: if you continue, you'll be arrested under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 for causing harassment, alarm, or distress. You stop. But you're left with a nagging question: how can swearing at no one in particular be a crime?

The answer is that section 5 is the lowest-rung public order offence — the broadest, the easiest to prove, and the one most people encounter. It doesn't require intent. It doesn't require actual harm. It doesn't even require that anyone was actually there to hear you — only that someone was likely to be. And it's the only public order offence that carries no possibility of imprisonment. This guide explains what s.5 covers, how it differs from the more serious sections 4 and 4A, and when a police warning is the end of the matter — or the start of something more serious.

Disclaimer: This is general information, not legal advice. If you've been arrested or charged under s.5, the reasonable conduct defence could apply to your case. Speak to a solicitor.

Jurisdiction: This covers England and Wales. Scotland has separate public order legislation.

Section 5: The Three Elements the Prosecution Must Prove 1. THREATENING OR ABUSIVE WORDS Or disorderly behaviour "Insulting" removed 2014 2. LIKELY TO CAUSE H/A/D Within hearing or sight Likelihood only — no actual harm needed 3. NO DEFENCE APPLIES Defendant must prove conduct was reasonable — s.5(3)(c) No intent required — unlike s.4A. No actual harm required — likelihood only. No imprisonment — fine only (level 3, £1,000). Summary only — Magistrates' Court. Can also be dealt with by fixed penalty notice (FPN) — no court appearance Defendant must prove reasonable conduct on balance of probabilities — NOT the prosecution's burden Sources: Public Order Act 1986, s.5; Crime and Courts Act 2013, s.57
The three elements: threatening/abusive words or disorderly behaviour, likelihood of harassment/alarm/distress, and no reasonable-conduct defence.

What "Harassment, Alarm, or Distress" Actually Means

The statute doesn't define these terms — courts have. Harassment means conduct that torments, troubles, or worries a person — persistent or targeted behaviour, not a fleeting encounter. Alarm suggests fear or apprehension — something that would make a reasonable person concerned for their safety. Distress is the broadest — emotional upset, anxiety, or discomfort that goes beyond mere annoyance. A person who is merely irritated or inconvenienced is not "distressed" in the legal sense — but the threshold is low, and courts have interpreted the test generously for prosecutors.

The key word is "likely." The prosecution doesn't need to prove harassment, alarm, or distress actually occurred. It only needs to prove it was likely to occur. This makes s.5 dramatically easier to prove than s.4A, which requires actual harassment, alarm, or distress. In Harvey v DPP [2011] EWHC 3990 (Admin), the High Court quashed a s.5 conviction because there was no evidence anyone was actually present to hear the swearing — without an audience, no one could have been "likely" to be caused H/A/D. The case illustrates the outer boundary: if no one is there, s.5 fails.

The "Insulting" Removal — And Why It Matters

Until 2014, s.5 covered "threatening, abusive or insulting" words. The word "insulting" was removed by section 57 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, following a campaign by free-speech advocates who argued it criminalised too broad a range of speech — political protest, religious criticism, even comedy. The current s.5 covers "threatening or abusive" words only — a meaningfully narrower category. "Insulting" remains in sections 4 and 4A — it was only removed from s.5.

If a police officer tells you s.5 covers "insulting" behaviour, they're referring to the pre-2014 version. The current s.5 does not. Politely noting the distinction may not be well received in the moment — but it's legally correct.

Section 5 vs Section 4A vs Section 4: The Ladder Compared SECTION 5 Threatening or abusive Likely to cause H/A/D Fine only • No intent needed SECTION 4A Intent to cause H/A/D AND actually causing it 6 months • "Insulting" still in SECTION 4 Intent to cause belief in immediate unlawful violence 6 months • No reasonable defence Escalation: s.5 (fine, no intent) → s.4A (6mo, intent + causation) → s.4 (6mo, intent to provoke fear of violence) Same words can be charged under any section — the difference is what the prosecution can prove about intent and outcome Sources: POA 1986, ss.4, 4A, 5; Crime and Courts Act 2013, s.57
The three-tier ladder compared. Section 5 is the lowest rung — the easiest to prove and the only one without imprisonment.

Where s.5 Fits With Other Laws

Section 5 is primarily a face-to-face offence, but courts have confirmed it can extend to online posts where the words are capable of being seen by someone likely to be caused harassment, alarm, or distress. In practice, online speech is more commonly charged under the Communications Act 2003, s.127 (grossly offensive messages, 6 months) — which was designed (or adapted) for digital communications. The POA is the backup, not the primary tool, for online speech.

Human Rights Act 1998, Article 10: The free-expression counterweight. Section 5 must be interpreted compatibly with Article 10 — the restriction must be proportionate. The reasonable-conduct defence is the mechanism through which Article 10 operates: political protest, genuine frustration, and proportionate responses to provocation may be "reasonable" and therefore not criminal — even if they technically satisfy the elements of the offence.

Practical Takeaways 1. You don't need intent Likelihood alone satisfies s.5 — this is the lowest bar in POA 2. Fine only — no prison s.5 can't result in imprisonment. It can still mean a criminal record. 3. "Insulting" was removed Only "threatening or abusive" applies under current s.5 (2014) 4. You must prove the defence — not the prosecution If you claim reasonable conduct, the burden shifts to YOU on the balance of probabilities Sources: POA 1986, s.5(3)(c); Harvey v DPP [2011]; Crime and Courts Act 2013, s.57
Four key takeaways: no intent needed, fine only, "insulting" removed in 2014, and the defendant must prove the reasonable-conduct defence.

Sources

UK Content Comply analyses content against 13 UK speech law frameworks. This article focuses on the Public Order Act 1986. For coverage of the Communications Act, Online Safety Act, or hate speech provisions, see our UK Speech Law resources.