|
|
|
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
On 23 June 2000, the respondent attended the premises of a company, B&K Ltd, and was abusive towards its employees. He had a camera with him and pointed it as if to film some of the employees entering the premises (although it had no film in it), whilst making aggressive and abusive statements. On 19 July 2000, he again visited the premises of B&K Ltd and, with others, positioned himself near the perimeter fence. Using a megaphone, he shouted abusive and threatening remarks which were heard by a number of witnesses who were outside in the grounds.
He was charged with pursuing a course of conduct which amounted to the harassment of the employees of B&K Ltd, contrary to s 2(1) and 2 (2) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The district judge found that the respondent had used abusive and threatening words and behaviour towards the prosecution witnesses; that that behaviour amounted to a course of conduct; and that the behaviour in question had caused a mixture of reactions amongst the witnesses varying from complete disdain to genuine fear. It held, however, that the charge was defective in that it was bad for duplicity; the prosecution, in naming the complainant as the ‘employees’ of B&K Ltd, had laid an unknown number of offences in one charge and had never identified the complainants. The prosecution appealed by way of case stated. The questions for the opinion of the High Court included whether the wording of the s 2 charge alleging a course of conduct amounting to harassment of ‘the employees of B&K’ was bad for duplicity.
Held – The appeal would be dismissed. On the facts, only some of the employees had been present both on 23 June and 19 July, and of them only some had given evidence. Of those who had given evidence, only some had stated that they had been distressed by the respondent’s actions, and others had not been the target of harassment. Accordingly, the evidence had fallen well short of that necessary to support the charges laid.
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