Zimbabwe Rule of Law Journal |127 of expression. It would have to be argued that interference or disruption of such essential services posed a threat to public safety or could result in public disorder. Additionally, the offence does not specify that the conduct caused serious interference or disruption and not just minor prejudice. When deciding on the constitutionality of the first sub-species of this offence it must be borne in mind that this first sub-species does not require that the prejudicial consequences actually occur; all that is required is that the maker of the statement had actual or legal intention to cause these consequences. This in effect is an offence that can be merely an intentional attempt to cause the consequence. For the second sub-species, the prejudicial consequence must have occurred but the State does not have to prove that the maker intended such consequence; all that has to be proven is that the maker knew that the statement was false or did not have reasonable grounds for believing it to be true. Section 177 of the Criminal Law Code A similarly vague offence – though admittedly the penalties are appreciable lower – is to be found in s 177, which reads: “Undermining of police authority Any person who (a) in a public place and in the presence of (i) a police officer who is present on duty; or (ii) a police officer who is off duty, knowing that he or she is a police officer or realising that there is a risk or possibility that he or she is a police officer; makes any statement that is false in a material particular or does any act or thing whatsoever; or (b) in a public place and whether or not in the presence of a police officer referred to in subparagraph (i) or (ii) of paragraph (a), makes any statement that is false in a material particular or does any act or thing whatsoever; with the intention or realising that there is a risk or possibility of engendering feelings of hostility