harassment

Question 1

protection from harassment act 1997

Answer 1

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

Question 2

S1(1) protection from harassment act 1997

Answer 2

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

Question 3

S1(1A)

Answer 3

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

Question 4

what is the AR

Answer 4

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

Question 5

section 7(2) definition of harassment

Answer 5

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

Question 6

Curtis 2010

Answer 6

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

Question 7

how do we find harassment

Answer 7

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

Question 8

James v CPS

Answer 8

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

Question 9

S7(3) A course of conduct must involve what

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Kelly v DPP

Answer 10

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

Question 11

multiple acts

Answer 11

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

Question 12

multiple acts and course of conduct

Answer 12

To establish a course of conduct, it must be shown that as well as there being multiple acts – there must also be connected

Question 13

Lau v DPP 2000

Answer 13

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

Question 14

how is AR satisfied

Answer 14

Are the incidents logically connected as a single course of conduct?

If yes then AR satisfied

Question 15

MR

Answer 15

Split into 2 distinctions dependent on whether it is one or more multiple victims

Question 16

S1 & S1(A) where only one victim

Answer 16

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

Question 17

S1 & S1(A) where multiple victims

Answer 17

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

Question 18

S1(3) highlights that harassment does not apply to conduct that

Answer 18

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

Question 19

section 1(3) aimed at

Answer 19

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

Question 20

S4: causing fear of violence

Answer 20

Criminalizes conduct that causes harassment to V, but then also leads to a fear that violence will be used against the V

Question 21

S4 AR

Answer 21

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

Question 22

S4 MR

Answer 22

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