Paragraph 176(1)(a), in the first line, mentions “unlawfully obstructs”: “by threats or force, unlawfully obstructs or prevents or endeavours to obstruct or prevent a clergyman” and so on. The “unlawfully obstructs” strikes me as kind of unusual. It seems that it's adding something extra. There already has to be an unlawful act to get to the point where you are actually committing a different type of offence. Would you agree with that?
On October 30th, 2017. See this statement in context.