|
|
|
Criminal law – Harassment – Course of conduct – Evidence before court of several incidents – Whether incidents constituting a course of conduct – Protection from Harassment Act 1997, ss 1, 2.
During August 1998, the appellant first approached the victim whilst she was cleaning her car outside her home. Two days later he called at the victim’s address and gave her a begonia plant. Two or three days following that incident, the appellant delivered a package to the victim, who was upset by his presence and was concerned how he had come into possession of the package, thereby learning her name and address.
Two weeks later the victim received a letter from the appellant. She complained to the police who visited the appellant in his home. They found four camcorders, one of which was set up on a tripod behind a window overlooking the street and videos showing the victim going and leaving her car. The appellant was charged with pursuing a course of conduct which amounted to harassment of the victim and which he knew or ought to have known amounted to harassment of her in that he gave her an unwanted gift, sent her a letter and filmed her with a video camera contrary to s 2(1) and (2) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The magistrates convicted the appellant. The appellant appealed by way of case stated.
The appeal would be allowed.
Although individual incidents might not in themselves amount to harassment, they could form a background against which further events were to be viewed. Neither the offer of a gift nor the receipt of a letter, which contained no threats or abusive comments, could be said to constitute harassment unless a defendant were to send repeated gifts and letters. In the instant case, the magistrates should have treated the incidents as showing that the appellant wanted a relationship with the victim, who was not interested in having a relationship with him. Accordingly, they had been wrong to hold that those incidents did amount to harassment.
Moreover, the magistrates had made no finding that the appellant had come by the package unlawfully so there was no ground for finding him guilty of harassment in respect of that incident. The magistrates had been entitled to find that repeatedly making video films of the victim did amount to harassment, but as they had not considered whether the appellant should have known that what he was doing would amount to harassment, the case would be remitted for them to make findings on that point.
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