|
|
|
Criminal law – Harassment – Course of conduct – Justices finding complainant only caused harassment alarm and distress on one occasion – Whether necessary to find complainant suffering harassment alarm and distress – Protection from Harassment Act 1997, ss 2, 7.
Notes
In this case the magistrates originally ruled that a victim had to suffer "harassment, alarm AND distress" on at least two occasions in order to establish a course of conduct contrary to Section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. On appeal the judge ruled that this was wrong and that the term "harassment, alarm or distress" are to be understood "disjunctively" rather than "conjunctively". All this means is that on each occasion the victim need only suffer either harassment, alarm OR distress in order for the offence to be made out.
This case clearly makes it easier in any case for the prosecution to establish a course of conduct contrary to Section 2 of the Act, as they only need to prove one of the ingredients of the offence as opposed to all three.
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