|
|
|
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was directed at the prevention of stalking, anti-social behaviour by neighbours and racial harassment.
Mr Justice Douglas Brown so held in the Queens Bench Division when striking out a claim by the claimants, Ian Richard Tuppen and Sibbash Singh, for damages and injunctive relief against the defendants, Microsoft Corporation Ltd and Linklaters, for harassment contrary to sections 1 and 3 of the 1997 Act.
Mr JUSTICE DOUGLAS BROWN said that the claimants had produced counterfeit computer goods and passed them off as goods produced by the first defendant, an international supplier of computer software.
The claimants alleged that the defendants had subsequently harassed them in a number of ways including by suborning the police in to raiding the home of one of the claimants, by conducting oppressive litigation, and by telephoning one of the claimants late at night.
The defendants submitted that a proper construction of the 1997 act confined the breaches of the Act giving rise to a civil remedy to those arising in cases of stalking, anti-social behaviour by neighbours and racial harassment.
In his Lordship’s judgment, the defendants’ contention on the restricted ambit of the statute were plainly right. No definition of harassment was contained in the Act.
Because of the wide potential and far-reaching meaning of “harassment” it was legitimate to have recourse to the parliamentary record as an aid to construction.
It was plain from a study of the speeches of Mr Michael Howard, the Home Secretary at the time ( HC – Debates, December 17, 1996, cols 781, 783, and 784) and Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Chancellor (HL Debates, January 24, 1997, col 917) what kind of behaviour was being directed at and sought to be controlled.
Apart from the telephone call, which was an isolated incident, none of the activities came anywhere near falling under the prohibition of the Act, and the claimants had no prospect of succeeding in their claim.
Furthermore, the evidence failed to support any case of harassment by a course of conduct actionable under the Act.
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