Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Flashcards
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 S.1
s.b. page 209
Prohibition of harassment
- s.1 (2) - course of conduct - ought to know it is harassment if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of another. (Objective test)
s. 1 (3) - ss.(1) and (2) do NOT apply in following circumstances (DEFENCES)
(a) pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime
(b) pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment.
(c) if in the particular circumstances the course of conduct was reasonable.
Levi v Bates [2015]
Authority: conduct amounting to harassment need NOT be targeted at anyone in particular - harm must just be foreseeable, as s.1 (1)(b) provides
Football programme case - defamatory comments - supporters encouraged - made reference to home tel. no of the couple - even though already publicly available in directory.
Claim brought by wife.
Held; could be liable for harassment against the wife, even though they were targeting the husband.
She was a foreseeable victim.
S.2 Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Criminal offence of harassment.
S.3. Protection from Harassment Act 1997
CIVIL REMEDY FOR HARASSMENT - NEED TO CITE
S.3 (1) An actual or apprehended breach of section 1 (1) may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or ay be the victim of the course of conduct in question.
(2) On such a claim, damages may be awarded for (among other things) any anxiety caused by the harassment AND ANY FINANCIAL LOSS resulting from the harassment.
‘among other things - list of actionable damage is non-exhaustive - scope for expansion.
Harassment/Rule in Wilkinson v Downton
Under s.1 of Protection from Harassment Act 1997, requires a ‘course of conduct’ - i.e. more than one occasion/one more than one person.
Thus - if event is an isolated incident - rule in Wilkinson v Downton used.
Jones v Ruth [2011]
Authority that foreseeability of the TYPE of harm is NOT REQUIRED.
Conn v Sunderland CC [2007]
foreman - building site - who’s been leaving early - threatened to punch window - then threatened ‘good hiding’
_____
C of A laid out 2 part test for when behaviour will amount to harassment in civil proceedings:
(1) Needs to be 2 or more occasions
(2) Behaviour will be harassing when capable of sustaining criminal liability under s.2.
___
Held that only 2nd threat capable of warranting criminal sanctions under s.2 - thus not a ‘course of conduct’.
Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009]
Had changed energy supplier - kept getting sent letters and bills threatening to take legal action against her, even though she knew she didn’t owe them anything.
BG argued that the threats weren’t grave and also that she knew she was in the right so thus shouldn’t have been bothered by threats - wasn’t capable of being harassed.
JUDGEMENT FOR CLAIMANT:
Held; fact that she knew she was in the right actually made it even more so the case that it was harassment.
“A victim of harassment will almost always know that it is unjustified.”
+ AUTHORITY THAT COMPANIES CAN BE LIABLE UNDER 1997 ACT - FACT THAT IT COULD BE ERROR OF COMPUTERISED DEBT RECOVERY SYSTEM IS IMMATERIAL.
Roberts v Bank of Scotland Plc [2013]
Case where claimant was part in the wrong - had gone over overdraft partly due to her own fault, and partly because of glitch in bank’s system.
Bank entitled to press her for payment.
But - held; that constant phone calls - 547 = HARASSMENT.
Court - looked at power of large bank compared to woman in financial difficulties.
Bank had other options open to it - e.g. could sue her or could withdraw service from her entirely.
Employees at call centre could clearly see how many times she had been called and she had said many times that she wished not to be called.
Liability.
Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd [2009]
Workplace bullying
C of A allowed - conduct that is “oppressive and unreasonable”
Malice not a requirement of harassment but makes “oppressive and unreasonable” test easier to achieve.
Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors [2011]
Solicitor left former employer and nabbed a client.
Received series of letters making personal and professional allegations about him.
Held; that whilst each incident on its own not enough to = harassment, considering all the incidents together = harassment.
Suggest change in the judicial approach since Conn v Sunderland CC
- looking at the incidents collectively rather than individually.
Hayes v Willoughby [2013]
D - convinced boss was fraudulently embezzling funds.
Tipped off police and tax authorities but they found no evidence.
Continued with intrusive campaign into his personal and private life.
_____
Claim brought against him for harassment.
C of A ALLOWED - held that defence under S.1 (3)(a) could not apply -
PREVENTING/DETECTING CRIME MUST BE SOLE PURPOSE OF D’s COURSE OF CONDUCT
_____
UKSC - dismissed appeal but on different grounds.
Course of conduct must be reasonable as per s.1 (3)(c)
Applied TEST OF RATIONALITY
S.7. Protection from Harassment Act 1997
s.b. page 211
(3) course of conduct must involve
(a) when just on 1 person - at least 2 occasions in relation to that person.
(b) when 2 or more persons - at least 1 occasion in relation to each of those persons.
(4) conduct includes speech.
(5) references to a person who is an INDIVIDUAL (i.e. not a company)
Daiichi UK Ltd & Others v Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty
Example of S.7 (5)
A company/corporate entity cannot sue under Protection from Harassment Act - can be a defendant but not a claimant.
