Mitchell could only be arrested if officer complains, experts say But the context is everything. It will always depend on the circumstances and the officer's specific reaction. The officer would have to state that they had felt alarm, harassment or distress. Mr Natas said it was unlikely that the Mitchell case would have any implications for future interpretations of the law because the discretion afforded to officers was so wide. Nigel Richardson, who heads the criminal defence department at Hodge Jones and Allen Solicitors, questioned the likelihood of a judge ruling that a "tough" police officer had been so easily offended. "Potentially, it's possible," he said. Lots of types of behaviour fall under Section 5 of the Act. But the CPS will have to consider the right to free speech and the right to express oneself strongly. Every bit of behaviour is different. The Metropolitan Police last year reportedly instructed officers not to arrest those who subjected them to verbal abuse because the courts were unlikely to accept that police could be distressed by such language. The advice was condemned by some of Mr Mitchell's colleagues. Tory MP David Davies, who serves as a special constable, was quoted as saying: "This is a threat to law and order. When I trained in London four years ago, if someone swore directly at you - I was called a "f------ pig," for instance - you would give them one warning, then arrest them if they refused to stop. It is vital that you take action in such circumstances. The police should not have to put up with this behaviour. Last December, a High Court judge overturned a suspect's £50 fine for repeatedly swearing at officers in London, stating that such actions would be unlikely to cause them distress. Mr Justice Bean ruled that the expletives used by 20-year-old Denzel Cassius Harvey, who repeatedly said the "F" word while being searched for drugs, were heard "all too frequently" by police officers on duty and so were unlikely to have greatly disturbed them. Others have not fared so well. Rick Gemmell, 19, from Manchester was jailed for four months for "ranting and swearing" at police during last year's riots. Gemmell this week called for Mr Mitchell to be treated in the same way. "Let's see if he likes it," he said. Andrew Mitchell should be treated the same as I was. He should be banged up for 16 weeks and see how he likes it. If anyone else but a Government minister had said the same thing to the same officers, then they would have been arrested. Jason Ullett, 39, was also sentenced to ten weeks in prison last year for "swearing at police officers," according to Greater Manchester Police force's Twitter feed. The Home Office is currently consulting on whether the word "insulting" should be removed from the wording of the law and is expected to publish its conclusions in November. Campaigners who support the amendment have warned that its terms amount to a level of censorship and restrict free speech. Peter Tatchell, director of the human rights advocacy organisation, The Peter Tatchell Foundation, said: "Andrew's words were offensive and wrong. But they were not premeditated. It was a spontaneous outburst and he has apologised. I hope that there will be no attempt to prosecute him under the notorious Section 5. His bad language, although deplorable, is not the kind of language that should be subject to criminal sanctions.