|
|
|
Criminal law – Harassment – Course of conduct – Two incidents between husband and wife taking place whilst still living together and against background of deteriorating relationship – Whether incidents amounting to course of conduct – Protection from Harassment Act 1997, s 2.
P was charged with pursuing a course of conduct against his wife which amounted to harassment contrary to s 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 on the basis of two incidents between them. The justices found that P was still living with his wife under the same roof, notwithstanding that the relationship had deteriorated and that on 25 December 1999, P had tried to start an argument with his wife, followed her into the kitchen and threw a beaker of water over her.
P’s wife then brought civil proceedings which resulted in P giving an undertaking not to, inter alia, use or threaten violence against his wife or to intimidate, harass or pester her. The justices also found that on 17 March 2000, P chased his wife through the house and up the stairs, swearing and repeatedly questioning her. They were of the opinion that those two incidents amounted to a course of conduct for the purposes of s 2 as they had taken place within three months of each other during a period of acrimony with no intervening period of reconciliation.
P was convicted and appealed by way of case stated. The question for the opinion of the High Court was whether the justices were correct in finding that the two incidents amounted to a course of conduct.
The appeal would be dismissed.
It was settled law that the issue to be determined by the justices was whether the incidents were so connected in terms of type and context to justify a conclusion that the incidents complained of amounted to a course of conduct. On the evidence, the relationship between P and his wife had deteriorated to such an extent that he acted in the manner found by the justices on 25 December 1999 which in turn caused his wife to bring the proceedings in which he gave the undertaking.
They were still under the same roof and in a deteriorating relationship when the second incident occurred. Against that background, although the instant case was close to the borderline, the incidents were sufficiently similar to justify the conclusion that they amounted to a course of conduct for the purposes of s 2.
R v Hills [2001] 1 FCR 569 and Lau v Director of Public Prosecutions [2000]
All ER (D) 224 applied.
Per curiam: The prosecution should be cautious about using the offence of
harassment where complaint is made of only a small number of incidents.
Nigel Woodhouse (instructed by Martyn Hewett, Shepherdswell) for P.
John Causer (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service, Berkshire) for the
prosecution.
Martyn Gurr Barrister.
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