harassment Flashcards
protection from harassment act 1997
S2 created the offence of harassment, making it an offence to pursue a course of conduct which was in breach of S1(1) or 1(1)a
S1(1) protection from harassment act 1997
A person must not pursue a course of conduct
a) Which amounts of harassment of another
b) Which he knows, or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other
S1(1A)
A person must not pursue a course of conduct
a) Which involves harassment of two or more persons
b) Which he knows our ought to know, involves harassment of those persons
what is the AR
a course of conduct which result in D being harassed
D’s behaviour must have been persistent, with a course of conduct of at least 2 incidents
section 7(2) definition of harassment
Included the def that harassment is ‘the causing of alarm of distress’
However O’Neill (2016) pointed out many acts cause alarm or distress that are not harassment
Curtis 2010
The D clearly caused harm and distress through assaults and dangerous behaviour, but a conviction was quashed as 6 incident over a 9 month relationship involved violence between both parties, did not amount of harassment
how do we find harassment
Sufficient awareness of the laws to be able to discuss possible outcomes
If there is causing of alarm or distress, and these action are oppressive – then consider harassment, but context is key
James v CPS
The V was manager of a social services team who had duty to return the calls of D despite the fact they were receiving persistent abuse
Doesn’t matter that there was self-exposure, D still liable
S7(3) A course of conduct must involve what
a) In the case of conduct in relation to a single person, conduct on at least two occasions in relation to that person
b) In the case of conduct in relations to two + persons, conduct on at least one occasion in relation to each of those persons
If 1V – there must be at least two circumstances where the D repeats certain conduct to the V
Kelly v DPP
D made 3 calls to V’s phone, leaving abusive messages. When listening to this, V was caused severe distress – there were a course of conduct rather than a single incident
multiple acts
If there are multiple (2+ victims) then each V only needs to be subject to 1 act of harassment which will constitute a course of conduct
Means that you avoid the prospect of D evading liability due to multiple acts of harassment being aimed at one person
multiple acts and course of conduct
To establish a course of conduct, it must be shown that as well as there being multiple acts – there must also be connected
Lau v DPP 2000
D slapping GF in face then 4 months later threatened new GF w/brick
Conviction not upheld, the acts did not have the logical connection
There can be a gap in offence, but they must have logical connection
how is AR satisfied
Are the incidents logically connected as a single course of conduct?
If yes then AR satisfied
MR
Split into 2 distinctions dependent on whether it is one or more multiple victims
S1 & S1(A) where only one victim
D must have known, or ought to have known at the time of acting that the conduct would result in harassment
Two standards for this:
- Subjective: what did the D know?
- Objective: a reasonable person would know or realise the same thing
When using the objective standard, the D’s failure to appreciate their own conduct will not be taken into account
S1 & S1(A) where multiple victims
A further level of intent requires
D must intent their conduct to persuade the victim either to refrain from something they are entitled to do or to do something they are not
S1(3) highlights that harassment does not apply to conduct that
a) Pursued for preventing or detecting crime
b) Pursed under a rule of law to comply with a requirement by any person under any enactment
c) Pursuit of the conduct was reasonable
section 1(3) aimed at
a) Aimed at protecting police and law enforcement, but also investigate journalists – is closely scrutinised
b) Aimed at protecting free speech through protests and demonstrations
c) More problematic, proving on balance of probs that it was reasonable. Generally, requires a difficulty balancing of powers
S4: causing fear of violence
Criminalizes conduct that causes harassment to V, but then also leads to a fear that violence will be used against the V
S4 AR
Shares many of the same AR elements as s2 with added fact that D causes V to fear violence
A much more serious offence and carries up to 10 years imprisonment
S4 does not require V to anticipate imminent violence but they must desire the harm to come to them
S4 MR
Sufficient MR if a reasonable person, with the same knowledge D has, would have known that the course of conduct would cause the result of V fearing harm
