Harassment Flashcards
Harassment definition
s1(1) Protection from Harassment Act 1997
A person must not pursue a course of conduct:
Which amounts to harassment of another, and
Which they know or ought to know amounts to harassment of another
Course of conduct
Several occasions
At least twice - s7
Sometimes more than twice is required e.g. sending gifts
Can’t be one continuous act
Must be lots of separate acts that are very closely linked
But don’t have to be the same type of act
Acts don’t have to be criminal
The longer apart acts are, less likely to be harassment
Making a dog bark at someone - yes
Not stopping a dog from barking at someone - no
Harassment
Causing alarm or distress
Victim must show they have been harassed
Another person
Cannot harass a company
But can harass a person in a company
Harassment to persuade a person to do or not to do something - s1(1A)
s1(1A) Protection from Harassment Act 1997
It is an offence for D to pursue a course of conduct which involves harassment of 2+ persons and he knows/ought to know it involves harassment of those persons and by which he intends to persuade any person to do something or not to do something.
Designed to address issues around animal rights protesters and what is an acceptable level of protest.
Could be 2 different extremists sending letters to 2 different companies telling them not to supply company C, if proved they were acting together offence can be proven.
Harassment offence - s2
s2 Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Summary
A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of s1 is guilty of an offence
Knows or ought to know
Objective test
What would a reasonable person think?
Ds mental illness does not provide a defence to this, will only be taken into account for sentencing
Defences
It is a defence for D to show he did the course of conduct:
- for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime
- under any enactment or rule of law to comply with a particular condition or requirement
- in circumstances whereby the course of conduct was reasonable.
D must prove on the balance of probabilities.
E.g. police surveillance teams, court officers serving summons.
Reasonable - question of fact for court
Injunctions
s3 and s3A Protection from Harassment Act 1997 says V can get an injunction against D from the civil courts.
If Vs are harassed as they are employees, company could also get the injunction instead.
There is an offence of breaching this injunction under s3(6).
Either way offence.
Restraining order
s5 and 5A Protection fro Harassment Act 1997
Court have a power to make a restraining order on Ds conviction.
Can also be made on Ds acquittal.
This can be in addition to any other sentence.
Breach of the order is an offence under s5(5).
Either way
Strict liability offence.
Harassment with fear of violence - s4
s4 Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Either way
It is an offence for D whose course of conduct causes another to fear, on at least 2 occasions, that violence will be used against him if he knows or ought to know that his course of conduct will cause the other fear on each of those occasions.
Harassment offence + causing V fear.
Have to show what in the harassment is making V fear.
V must have actually been in fear.
V must have been in fear that violence will happen, not might happen.
V must have fear violence against themselves, a family member is not enough.
Same defences as s2 apply.
Stalking offence - s2A
s2A Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Summary
D is guilty if he pursues a course of conduct in breach of s1 and the course of conduct amounts to stalking
Examples of stalking behaviour
s2A(3):
Following a person
Contacting/attempting to contact person by any means
Loitering in any place
Interference with any property in possession of a person
Watching or spying on a person
Stalking involving fear of violence/serious alarm or distress - s4A
s4A Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Either way
D is guilty if his course of conduct amounts to stalking and either causes V to fear, on at least 2 occasions, that violence will be used against them or causes V serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on Vs usual day to day activities.
Fear of violence - D should know or ought to know this.
Substantial adverse effect - would reasonable person think the course of conduct would cause B such alarm and distress?
Examples of substantial adverse effect:
Having to change where they work, their work/home life patterns, the way they socialise, their phone number etc.
Police direction to prevent intimidation or harassment
s42 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 gives police powers where protesters gather outside a house where a particular individual is believed to be.
Senior police officer will give directions.
Situation must involve:
- D outside any premises used by any individual as their dwelling,
- PC reasonably believes the D is there to represent or persuade the resident or any other individual that they should do something or not do something,
- PC also reasonably believes that Ds presence amounts or is likely to amount in the harassment of the resident or is likely to cause alarm or distress to the resident.
Direction under s42 will require D to leave vicinity and not return within a specified period of up to 3 months.
Can be oral.
The knowing contravention of this direction is a summary offence under s42(7).
It is also a summary offence to unlawfully return to vicinity within the specified time period under s42(7A).
