|
|
|
Criminal law – Harassment – Course of conduct – Evidence before court of two incidents – Second incident involving threats directed at complainant’s dogs – Complainant not asked specifically whether threats causing fear of violence – Whether threat directed at dogs capable of amounting to conduct for purposes of statute – Whether magistrate entitled to draw inference that complainant feared violence without direct evidence from her – Protection from Harassment Act 1997, s 4.
The appellant was charged with pursuing a course of conduct that caused the complainant to fear for her personal safety contrary to s 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The stipendiary magistrate found that the complainant and her family were subject to a catalogue of abuse from her neighbours including appellant, who was a frequent visitor. The complainant referred to two specific incidents. During the first, the appellant threatened her with a knife and told her ‘I’m going to slash your fucking throat’ and on the second occasion he stated that he would blow her dogs’ brains out.
The magistrate convicted the appellant, being of the opinion that it could be inferred from the complainant’s demeanour in court, that she lived in fear of the appellant. The appellant appealed by way of case stated. The questions for the opinion of the High Court were, inter alia, (i) whether the threat directed at the dogs in the present of the complainant was capable of amounting to conduct for the purposes of s 4 of the 1997 Act and (ii) whether the magistrate was correct in drawing an inference that the complainant was in fear of violence without direct evidence from her that she did so fear.
The appeal would be dismissed.
(1) Whether or not the conduct of a person had given cause for another to fear for their personal safety was a question of fact to be established in each case. Words or conduct which were ostensibly directed to something or someone other than the person alleged to have been put in fear did not, simply because it was so directed, fall outside conduct which could support a conviction. It was not the intention of Parliament to legislate for specific circumstances which fell within or without the section, there was a variety of means of making threats of violence to another which could be and were frequently adopted during a course of conduct falling with the 1997 Act. In the instant case, a threat which was directed to the complainant’s dogs was capable of falling within the section and constituted conduct which was capable of supporting a conviction.
(2) Where a complainant gave evidence that she lived in fear of the residents of and visitors to the neighbouring house, the magistrate could infer from the surrounding circumstances that the complainant had been in fear when the incidents of harassment, said to constitute a course of conduct, occurred. It followed in the instant case that the magistrate was entitled to infer that when the appellant made threats of violence towards her dogs that she feared for her personal safety.
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