Simple Harassment

Question 1

Q: What type of offence is simple harassment under PH Act?

Answer 1

Summary offence
Carries a maximum of 6 months.

Question 2

Q: Is there a racially or religiously aggravated form of simple harassment?

Answer 2

Yes- under the Crime and Disorder Act.
It is a triable either way offence.
Maximum of 2 years on indictment, 12 months summarily.

Question 3

Q: What is the law on simple harassment?

Answer 3

S1 and s2 PH Act 1997.
S1- Prohibition of harassment
(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct—
(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
(1A) A person must not pursue a course of conduct —
(a) which involves harassment of two or more persons, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know involves harassment of those persons, and
(c) by which he intends to persuade any person (whether or not one of those mentioned above)—
(i) not to do something that he is entitled or required to do, or
(ii) to do something that he is not under any obligation to do.

Question 4

Q: What are the two forms of the simple harassment offence?

Answer 4

S1(1)- where an individual is targeted.
S1(1A)- where multiple victims are targeted but with the same objective in mind, which is to persuade someone (not necessarily targeted victim themselves) to do or not to do something.

Question 5

Q: Who can be the victim?

Answer 5

‘Another’ and ‘person’ means natural, individual, human persons- not companies or corporate bodies.
Companies cannot be direct victims of harassment or apply for injunctions as victims in their own right.
Individual employees, directors or clearly defined group of individuals may do so.
There needs to be evidence of harassment of an actual person, rather than just the company as a whole.

Question 6

Q: Can companies be perpetrators if they can’t be victims?

Answer 6

A company can be a legal person capable of harassing another within the meaning of the Act.
If Acts of harassment are carried out in the course of employment, the company employer could be held vicariously liable for the conduct of its employees (eg: debt collection agency that sends threatening letters to someone who is not in debt).

Question 7

Q: What are the essential elements to the offence?

Answer 7

1: Perpetrator (person, but may be a company)
2: Victim (cannot be a company, so must be a person)
3: Course of conduct which amounts to harassment of the victim

Question 8

Q: What is ‘course of conduct’?

Answer 8

Defined by s7- means conduct on at least 2 occasions relating to that person.
It suggests something more than a series of unrelated incidents, there must be a connection between them.
There must be 2 incidents of harassment against the same person!

Question 9

Q: Is there a requirement for the incidents to be close in terms of time?

Answer 9

There is no requirement that the incidents need to be close in terms of time, but the fewer and further apart they are the harder it will be to establish that they genuinely amount to a course of conduct.
Case law has suggested even incidents as far apart as a year could (in an exceptional case) qualify eg: unwanted birthday gifts sent once a year. It will be a matter of fact and context.

Question 10

Q: Case law- harassment

Answer 10

Barron v CPS- individual convicted of harassment after sending 2 threatening letters to benefits angry staff almost 5 months apart.
Kelly v DPP- 3 telephone calls in the space of 5 minutes were sufficient to amount to a course of conduct.
Hardy v DPP- one legitimate call of complaint descended into a course of conduct amounting to harassment when D made another 95 calls over a 90-minute period to a small company and threatened to keep calling all night.

Question 11

Q: Do the acts making up the course of conduct need to be the same type?

Answer 11

No- a phone call followed by a personal approach would suffice.
Every case will be a matter of fact for the court to decide.

Question 12

Q: Is it the isolated incidents that will be considered or the course of conduct as a whole when determining if harassment has taken place?

Answer 12

It is the course of conduct as a whole, which must amount to harassment of another, rather than the individual instances themselves.
Behaviour, which when considered as isolated incidents may not seem at all alarming or distressing, can become so in the context of a course of behaviour.

Question 13

Q: What is the required MR?

Answer 13

S1(1)(b)- the perpetrator must not pursue a course of conduct which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of another.
‘He knows’- subjective test- what does D himself actually know?
‘Ought to know’- objective test.

Question 14

Q: When should someone ‘ought to know’? What does it mean?

Answer 14

S1(2)
For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to or involves harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.
The court has to ask ‘what would a reasonable person have known’? if a reasonable person would have known that the behaviour amounted to harassment then D is guilty and it does not matter if D himself did not realise.

Question 15

Q: What is the purpose of the objective test?

Answer 15

It is to protect against behaviour that society in general would view as unacceptable. Difficult for the court to prove the subjective element.

Question 16

Q: What characteristics of D can be attached to the word ‘reasonable’?

Answer 16

COA held- no characteristics of D can be attached to the word ‘reasonable’. If D is suffering from a particular mental illness, that is not a factor the jury should take into account in deciding what a reasonable person ought to have known. It may have a bearing on the sentence given.

Question 17

Q: What are the 3 different defences to simple harassment?

Answer 17

S1(3)
1: Purpose of preventing or detecting crime
- D will have a defence if he can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he pursued the course of conduct for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime eg: police officers
2: To comply with a rule of law or condition
- D will have a defence if he pursued the course of conduct because he had to comply with any enactment or rule of law eg: bailiff- needs to personally serve a document. He has to follow the person around, wait outside their house, chase after them etc to put the document into their hand. This is what they have to do to do their job properly
3: The course of conduct was reasonable (reasonable excuse)
- D will have a defence where the course of conduct was reasonable eg: neighbour bangs on door every morning at 2am because neighbour plays music too loud so no one can sleep. Only way they will turn it down is if neighbour bangs on door to stop it.

Question 18

Q: When was this offence introduced?

Answer 18

Introduced by Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005- tried to deal with the significant problem of employees, directors and supporters of companies that associated with animal research being targeted by animal rights protestors.

Question 19

Q: What is the purpose of this strand of the offence? What does it deal with?

Answer 19

Deals with the situation where multiple victims are targeted with the same objective in mind, which is to persuade someone (not necessarily the targeted V themselves) to do or not to do something.
Act was amended so that when the case is of multiple incidents against 2 or more persons, it is only necessary to prove conduct on at least 1 occasion in relation to each of those persons. The purpose of the harassment in that situation must be to persuade any person (not necessarily one of those being harassed) not to do something he is perfectly entitled to do (eg: going to work) or to do something he is not obliged to do.

Question 20

Q: Example from the Home Office that would amount to an offence under s1(1A)

Answer 20

Home Office guidance- an animal rights extremist sends a threatening letter to employee of company A and on a different occasion sends a similar letter to an employee of company, in both cases with the intention to persuade the employees not to go to work because their respective companies supply company C. company C is a company the extremist disapproves of. If 2 separate extremists send the letters, their conduct could still be covered if it was proved they were working together, in which case they would both be guilty of the offence.
This is because their behaviour, when taken together, amounts to a course of conducts.

Question 21

Q: What is the MR for the s1(1A) offence?

Answer 21

The MR is that D knew or ought to know that the course of conduct amounts to harassment of another person.

Question 22

Q: What defences apply to the s1(1A) offence?

Answer 22

Same defences apply to the s1(1A) offence as to the s1(1) offence.

Question 23

Q: What if someone aids or abets an offender?

Answer 23

If someone aids, abets, counsels, or procures another to commit an offence under the 1997 Act, the conduct of the primary offender will be taken to be that of the aider. They become liable for the conduct they have facilitated.