To constitute conduct conducive to the breach of the peace under section 207 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29) an actual breach of the peace did not need enough if it was shown that a breach of the peace was likely to result thereby. However, the conduct or utterance complained of should be established (I) to be insulting, abusive or threatening; (2) had taken place at a public meeting or public place; and (3) it occasioned a breach of the peace or was likely to have occasioned a breach of the peace. Moreover, the breach of the peace could only be committed by persons present at the public meeting or public place who were the subject of the attack or likely to be affected thereby. Accordingly, if any person present, though not directly attacked by the utterance or conduct of the accused, felt sufficiently provoked and was able to prove that the utterance or conduct was intended to achieve that purpose, that person could also be a complainant. In the instant case, even though the accused were said to have acted the way complained of in the presence of the complainant’s wife and nephew none of them considered the conduct of the accused provocative of a breach of the peace so they made no report to the police. The complainant who made the report was far away from the scene and so could not have been provoked by the conduct complained of. Thus, on the facts, the charge had not been made out and should have been dismissed. Since the conviction of the five accused persons on count one was erroneous, the court would vacate the judgments of both the circuit court and the High Court, quash the conviction and set aside the sentences. Furthermore, the fines if paid should be paid back by the circuit court to the affected person Uke v Ugie (1955) 15 WACA 15 cited.