Trespass to the Person - Harassment

Question 1

Which piece of legislation governs the Law on Harassment in the UK?

Answer 1

The Protection from Harassment Act 1998.

Question 2

What effect does the Protection from Harassment Act have?

Answer 2

It creates a statutory tort and goes beyond the common law by giving protection to distress which is not a medically recognised psychiatric injury.

Question 3

What is the primary remedy under the Protection from Harassment Act 1998?

Answer 3

The primary remedy under the Act is an injunction to prevent harassing conduct.

Question 4

Which section of the act states the statutory tort?

Answer 4

s1(1)

Question 5

What does s1(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1998 state?

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

Which section of the act provides the test for determining when an individual ‘ought to know’ that given conduct amounts to harassment?

Answer 6

s1(2)

Question 7

What does s1(2) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1998 state?

Answer 7

(2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to 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.

Question 8

Which case demonstrates the potential scope or extent of harassment cases?

Answer 8

Levi v Bates

Question 9

What are the details of the Levi v Bates Case?

Answer 9

The defendant pursued a course of conduct aimed at the claimant’s husband, including publishing his address and phone number, which the defendant knew the husband shared with the claimant.

Question 10

What are the findings of the Levi v Bates Case?

Answer 10

It was held that the defendant was liable - “[T]he ability to bring a harassment claim extended beyond the targeted individual only to those other persons who had been foreseeably, and directly, harmed by the course of targeted conduct of which complaint was made, to the extent that they could properly be described as victims of it.”

Question 11

How is Harassment defined?

Answer 11

The definition of harassment is deliberately broad.

Question 12

Which section of the Protection from Harassment Act relates to the definition of harassment?

Answer 12

s7(1) and (2)

Question 13

What does s7(1) and (2) state about the definition of harassment?

Answer 13

7 Interpretation of this group of sections.

(1) This section applies for the interpretation of sections [sections 1 to 5a]
(2) References to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress.

Question 14

Which case provided further clarification on what could be said to constitute harassment?

Answer 14

R v Majrowski

Question 15

What was found of established in the case of R v Majrowski?

Answer 15

Mere irritations and annoyances were not enough, the conduct must reach a level of “oppressive and unacceptable”.

Question 16

What is the significance of a ‘course of conduct’ in finding harassment?

Answer 16

Generally, a course of conduct is required for a finding of harassment, a single act will not be sufficient.

Question 17

Which section of the Protection from Harassment Act 1998 provides for the ‘course of conduct’ requirements?

Answer 17

s7(3)

Question 18

What does s7(3) provide regarding a ‘course of conduct’?

Answer 18

(3) A “course of conduct” must involve -
(a) in the case of conduct in relation to a single person (see section 1(1)), conduct on at least two occasions in relation to that person, or;
(b) in the case of conduct in relation to two or more persons (see section 1(1A)), conduct on at least one occasion in relation to each of those persons.]

Question 19

Which cases illustrate the courts flexible approach to determining what satisfies the ‘course of conduct’ test?

Answer 19

1. James v DPP
2. Law Society v Kordowski
3. Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd

Question 20

What are the details of the James v DPP case?

Answer 20

J phoned his local authority to complain about the adequacy of his social care on four occasions, two of those occasions were when social services had rung him. On each occasion he was verbally abusive.

Question 21

What are the findings of the James v DPP case?

Answer 21

It was held that for a number of incidents to constitute a course of conduct, they must be related in type and in context. Plainly the fewer incidents there are and the further in time they are apart, the less likely it will be that they can properly be treated as constituting a course of conduct. But it is all a question of fact.
But court interpreted the test broadly as including cases where the victim had a duty to contact the defendant.

Question 22

What are the details of the Law Society v Kordowski Case?

Answer 22

The defendant was the founder, operator and publisher of the “Solicitors from Hell” website. Members of the public were invited, in return for a fee, to “name and shame” solicitors.

Question 23

What are the findings of the Law Society v Kordowski Case?

Answer 23

It was held that publication of information about a person on a website could amount to a course of conduct.

Question 24

What are the details of the Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd Case?

Answer 24

The claimant was victimised and bullied by the defendant, who was her manager at her place of work.

Question 25

What are the findings of the Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd Case?

Answer 25

It was held that the treatment of the claimant in this case went beyond “unattractive” and “unreasonable” conduct (Lord Nicholl) or “the ordinary banter and badinage of life” (Baroness Hale).”

Question 26

How did the case of Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd seemingly illustrate the flexible approach adopted by the courts?

Answer 26

It was said in this case, by the courts, that “[A]lthough it is doubtful whether the legislature had the workplace in mind when passing [the] Act … there is nothing in the language of the Act which excludes workplace harassment’.

Question 27

What condition or limitation was placed upon such findings in the case of Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd?

Answer 27

It was said in this case that - ‘It should not be thought from this unusually one-sided case that stress at work will often give rise to liability for harassment. I have found the conduct in this case to be “oppressive and unacceptable” but I have done so in circumstances where I have also described it as “extraordinary”.”

Question 28

Which section of the Protection from Harassment Act 1998 provides for potential defences?

Answer 28

s1(3)

Question 29

What does s1(3) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1998 provide?

Answer 29

(3) Subsection (1) [F4or (1A)] does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows —
(a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,
(b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or;
(c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

Question 30

Which two (previously mentioned) provisions of the Protection from Harassment Act 1998 give rise to the most judicial discretion?

Answer 30

s1(2) - a course of conduct will be harassment “if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment”.
s.1(3), which in addition to defences of lawful justification, states a defence of - “that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.”

Question 31

Which case illustrates the judicial discretion enjoyed by the judiciary in regards to the Protection from Harassment Act 1998?

Answer 31

Hayes v Willoughby

Question 32

What are the details of the Hayes v Willoughby Case?

Answer 32

W believed his former employer was corrupt and attempted to expose this though a series of actions over a number of years. He continued his campaign after an investigation had found no wrongdoing.

Question 33

What are the findings of the Hayes v Willoughby Case?

Answer 33

It was held that s.1(3)(a) was neither wholly subjective – ie. satisfied if the defendant believed his conduct was reasonable. Nor was it wholly objective – ie. for the court to form its own judgment on the reasonableness of his actions.
The test was a simple test of rationality. “[H]e had to have thought rationally about the material suggesting the possibility of criminality and formed the view that the conduct said to constitute harassment was appropriate for the purpose of preventing or detecting it.”