|
|
|
Criminal law – Harassment – Course of conduct – Appellant making three calls within five minutes to complainant’s mobile telephone – Whether calls constituting a course of conduct – Protection from Harassment Act 1997, s 2.
The appellant was the complainant’s ex-boyfriend. In April 2001, he made three telephone calls to the complainant’s mobile telephone. The phone was switched off at the time and the appellant left three voicemail messages, which the complainant listened to the following day. All were of a threatening and abusive nature.
He was charged with pursuing a course of conduct which amounted to the harassment of the complainant and which he knew or ought to have known amounted to the harassment of the complainant, contrary to ss 2(1) and 2(2) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The justices were of the opinion that the three telephone calls were three separate and distinct telephone calls, albeit over five minutes or so, and that those were capable of amounting to a course of conduct and accordingly found him guilty.
The appellant appealed by way of case stated. The questions for the opinion of the High Court were (i) whether the making of three telephone calls amounted to conduct ‘on at least two occasions’ within the meaning of s 7(3) of the 1997 Act; and (ii) where the complainant was aware on one occasion only of harassment by the defendant, whether the defendant’s actions could amount to a course of conduct on at least two occasions for the purposes of the 1997 Act.
The appeal would be dismissed.
The justices had not acted irrationally in finding that the three calls in five minutes constituted a course of conduct. The calls were separate and distinct, and the space of time between them was only a factor in considering whether they amounted to a course of conduct. Moreover, the justices had not erred in law with regard to the fact that the complainant had listened to the messages at the same time. If a defendant sent numerous letters on different days, the fact that they might have been opened all on the same day would not preclude the actions of the defendant from being a course of conduct; the same applied to telephone messages.
King v Director of Public Prosecutions [2000] All ER (D) 840 and R v Hills [2001] 1 FCR 569 considered.
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