Breach of the Peace

“Have the courts clarified the definition of breach of the peace or does it still remain uncertain in scope?”

Breach of the peace is the state that occurs when harm is done or likely to be done to a person or (in his presence) to his property, or when a person is in fear of being harmed through assault, affray, or other disturbance. At common law, anyone may lawfully arrest a person for a breach of the peace committed in his presence, or when he believes that a person is about to commit or renew such a breach.1  
Breach of the peace can be committed in a wide variety of circumstances and situations and in many cases is considered to be a minor crime. It has been said a single, comprehensive definition
that would cover every option and circumstance is not likely to be possible.   One of the reasons why breach of the peace is such a broadly defined crime is that there is no exact conduct needed for the actus reus. Each case - situation is judged on it's own individual facts and circumstances

In the case of Raffaelli v Heatley   the accused was charged conducting himself in a disorderly manner by peering in at a lighted window of a house at night and putting residents in the  
street in a state of fear and alarm and committing a breach of the peace. Raffaelli v Heatley is considered the starting point of the modern law of the breach of peace although Smith v Donelly2 is the main case that established the basis of breach of the peace. “conduct which presented as genuinely alarming and disturbing, in its context, to any reasonable person (per Lord Coulsfield at paragraph 17).” Prior to this case breach of the peace was vaguely defined as one applying to virtually any conduct which caused (or was reasonably likely to cause) alarm, annoyance, upset or embarrassment to another person or persons. The case of Smith v Donelly redefined the crime as “ that conduct had to be severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to others....