|
|
|
CRIMINAL; Sentencing
Sentence – Restraining order – Whether order drafted too widely
– Protection from Harassment Act 1997, ss 4, 5
Notes
This case deals with Section 5 of the Harassment Act. This gives the courts the power to make an order against a defendant who has been convicted under sections 2 or 4 of the Act. The order may prohibit any course of conduct which is likely to cause further distress or fear of violence on the part of the victim.
The judge ruled that such an order must specifically name the persons who are being protected. It is not enough simply to refer to them as "members of staff".
This contrasts with the ongoing civil cases against Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, where it has been ruled that the employees of the claimants' companies can be protected by an injunction without having to be named themselves. The rulings in those cases and in this one cannot, in our view, be easily reconciled.
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