|
|
|
CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE - INFORMATION – DUPLICITY – HARASSMENT – DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH PURSUING COURSE OF CONDUCT AMOUNTING TO HARASSMENT OF HUSBAND AND WIFE – WHETHER INFORMATION BAD FOR DUPLICITY – PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT ACT 1997
Notes
This is a Section 2 harassment case in which the defendant was alleged to have pursued a course of conduct causing the harassment of two victims - husband and wife. The defence argued that the charge was "duplicitous" because the charge alleged more than one offence. It was argued that there should have been separate charges of harassment in the case of the husband and wife. A course of conduct could not be made out on this basis, as it could not be shown that the defendant had harassed each victim on more than one occasion.
The judge ruled however that the charge was not duplicitous, as on this occasion there was a significant "nexus" between the two victims, in that they were members of a "close but definable group". It followed that a cause of conduct causing harassment of the one would also harass the other.
It is interesting to compare this case to Caurti, a more serious Section 4 case involving causing fear of violence, where it was ruled that the defendant had to fear violence on behalf of himself on each occasion, whereas in the case of a Section 2 charge here harassment of the husband can amount to harassment of the wife and vice versa. It is also instructive to compare the later case ofDziurzynski where it was ruled that there was not a significant nexus between the 30 or so employees of a company.
This case could be used against activists where the same household or small firm had been regularly targeted. If the prosecution could show that the victims were members of a sufficiently "close but definable group", then a charge of Section 2 harassment would stand even though the victims were different members of the group on each occasion.
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