Check your content against UK speech law frameworks

Home / Blog / Section 4 vs Section 4A vs Section 5: A Public Order Act Cheat Sheet

← Back to Blog

Section 4 vs Section 4A vs Section 5: A Public Order Act Cheat Sheet

Published 9 July 2026

The Public Order Act 1986 has three main sections that trip people up constantly — including, sometimes, the officers enforcing them. They form a ladder, from the lowest threshold (section 5: fine only, no intent required) to the highest (section 4: imprisonment, intent to provoke violence). Which rung you are on depends on what you said, who heard it, and what you meant by it.

Disclaimer: General information, not legal advice. If you have been charged under the POA, speak to a solicitor.

Jurisdiction: England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate legislation.

The POA Three-Tier Ladder: Section 5 vs 4A vs 4 SECTION 5 Threatening or abusive Likely to cause H/A/D No intent • Fine only SECTION 4A Intent to cause H/A/D AND actually causing it Intent required • 6 months SECTION 4 Intent to cause fear of immediate unlawful violence No reasonable defence • 6 months Key difference: s.5 = no intent, likelihood only. s.4A = intent + actual causation. s.4 = intent to provoke fear of immediate violence. "Insulting" removed from s.5 in 2014 But still in ss.4 and 4A Reasonable conduct defence Available for ss.4A and 5 — not s.4 Sources: POA 1986; Harvey v DPP [2011]; DPP v Orum [1988]; Crime and Courts Act 2013, s.57 s.4B (sex-based s.4A) in force April 2026, max 2 years. s.5 covers online posts where capable of causing H/A/D.
The three-tier ladder at a glance. Section 5 is the lowest rung — easiest to prove, lowest penalty.

Section 5: The Lowest Rung

Section 5 criminalises threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm, or distress. No intent is required. The victim does not need to actually experience H/A/D — only that they were likely to. The word "insulting" was removed in 2014. The reasonable-conduct defence (s.5(3)(c)) applies. Maximum: fine only. In Harvey v DPP [2011] EWHC 3990 (Admin), a conviction was quashed because no one was actually present to hear the swearing. In DPP v Orum [1988], the court confirmed a police officer can be the victim — but officers are expected to be "more robust" than civilians.

Section 4A: The Middle Rung

Section 4A requires intent to cause H/A/D AND actual causation — both must be proved. "Insulting" remains in s.4A. The reasonable-conduct defence still applies. Maximum: 6 months (2 years if sex-based under new s.4B, in force April 2026).

Section 4: The Highest Rung

Section 4 covers threatening, abusive, or insulting words with intent to cause belief in immediate unlawful violence. The immediacy requirement makes this difficult to apply to online posts. No reasonable-conduct defence. Maximum: 6 months.

Sources

  • Public Order Act 1986 — legislation.gov.uk
  • Harvey v DPP [2011] EWHC 3990 (Admin)
  • DPP v Orum [1988] 1 WLR 88
  • CPS Public Order Guidance — cps.gov.uk

UK Content Comply analyses content against 13 UK speech law frameworks. See our resources for full coverage.