|
|
|
CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE - INFORMATION – DUPLICITY – HARASSMENT – DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH PURSUING COURSE OF CONDUCT AMOUNTING TO HARASSMENT OF EMPLOYEES OF COMPANY ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASION – WHETHER INFORMATION BAD FOR DUPLICITY – WHETHER DISTRICT JUDGE IN ERROR IN FINDING NO CASE TO ANSWER – PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT ACT 1997, S 2
Notes
This harassment case upholds the principle that the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 can not be used to protect companies. The defendant had been alleged to have employed a cause of conduct to emplyees of a company supplying animals to the vivisection industry. He had used threats and abuse and pointed a video camera at them as they entered work.
The judge ruled that his action could not amount to harassment contrary to Section 2 of the act. Firstly the 60 employees working at the premises could not be said to be "members of a close knit definable group" and so the case could be distinguished from the previous cases of Dunn and Mills, where the victims were members of the same household. Secondly the victims were only defined as "employees of B@K", and not actually identified in the charge. The charge was therefore duplicitous as it was not clear from the charge who had been caused harassment by the defendant's actions and who had not.
The consequences for activists from this case as follows. Firstly the victims must always be named in the charge. Secondly, where there is a alleged to be more than one victim, they must be part of a sufficiently close knit and definable group. Although this has not been explicitly defined, the judge had in mind members of the same household and ruled out company employees whose only connection was their common employment. Finally it upholds the fact that the act cannot be used to protect companies. This has again been upheld in the later case of Daichii and others v SHAC and others.
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