Harassment

Question 1

What is the point of reference for cases of harassment?

Answer 1

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Question 2

What is rule 1?

Answer 2

D has embarked on a course of conduct

Question 3

Rule 2?

Answer 3

Did that course of conduct harass, or cause ‘alarm and distress’?

Question 4

Rule 3

Answer 4

Did D intend to harass P, or was D’s conduct objectively harassing?

Question 5

Rule 4

Answer 5

Does D have a valid defence?

Question 6

Rule 5

Answer 6

What remedy should P claim?

Question 7

Which case shows us that course of conduct must amount to two incidents that amount to harassment and not just one?

Answer 7

Conn v Sunderland City Council

Question 8

Which case shows us that a course of conduct can be protracted but crucially it has to happen more than once?

Answer 8

Marinello v Edinburgh City Council

Question 9

Which statue covers course of conduct?

Answer 9

Section 8 (3)

Question 10

In which case does Lord Nicholls set out what constitutes harassing behaviour?

Answer 10

Majrowski v Guy and St Thomas NHS Trust

Question 11

What must that behaviour amount to?

Answer 11

It must be oppressive and unacceptable. Or genuinely offensive and unacceptable behaviour. It must amount to criminal liability.

Question 12

What case in Scots law uses the test set out by Lord Nicholls?

Answer 12

Dickie v Flexcon Glenrothes Ltd.

Question 13

What section does this fall under in statue?

Answer 13

section 8

Question 14

Which case shows us that intentional harassment of P can extend to a third party closely related to P?

Answer 14

Levis v Bates

Question 15

Which case shows us objectively harassing behaviour?

Answer 15

Suttle v Walker

Question 16

What defences are there to harassment?

Answer 16

A- authorisation by enactment or rule of law. B - pursued for the purpose of preventing crime. C - Was in the particular circumstances reasonable.

Question 17

Which does Hayes v Willoughby tell us about defence B?

Answer 17

Harassment must be rationally connected to prevention of crime. D did not establish defence as he was irrational in that he kept pursuing P even though police had informed him he was wrong.

Question 18

What does EDO V Campagin to Smash EDO tell us about defence B?

Answer 18

Need to identify victims at danger of crime and need to prove crime is immediate and imminent.

Question 19

What case shows us that there is a defence if conduct is reasonable?

Answer 19

Kahn v Kahn

Question 20

What are the remedies?

Answer 20

Interdict. Non-harassment Order and Damages.

Question 21

Which two cannot be brought in same proceeding?

Answer 21

Interdict and NHO.

Question 22

What is a case of neighbour harassment?

Answer 22

Worthington v Metropolitan Housing Trust