|
|
|
Notes
In this case it was ruled that the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 could be used to protect companies on a temporary basis at least from the actions of protestors. However in the case in question the injunction protecting the company was subsequently lifted on the grounds that it was not the intention of Parliament to prohibit lawful protest with the act. This principle has been upheld in subsequent cases - Dziurzynski. Daiichi
The purported reason for passing the harassment legislation was to deal with the problem of stalking, but the act has been used extensively against protestors too. The courts have stopped short of extending its ambit to companies as well, but they have however ruled that it can be used to protect employees from campaigns of unlawful harassment - see HLS, Daiichi
This article is for information purposes only; its aim is to let people to know their full rights under UK law. Nothing on these pages is absolute as the law is always changing; if in doubt contact a trusted solicitor for further advice. We do not encourage you to break the law.
Please feel free to copy and distribute these articles to fellow activists, but do not alter the text in any way. These articles are anti-copyright for non-commercial purposes. Please visit www.freebeagles.org for the latest version of our articles and to learn about the freeBEAGLES Ethical Open Document License under which this document is distributed.
If you see any errors, or we have missed any changes to the legal situation please contact us as soon as possible, at info@freebeagles.org, as wrong information can prove costly to people's freedom.
© Copyright freeB.E.A.G.L.E.S.; last updated: November 2003