BLACKBELTBARRISTER.COM

Most people, at some stage another, received a telephone call, and an email letter, or some other kind of conduct that they didn't like. But at what point does this sort of conduct become unacceptable to the point that the person doing it should be criminally liable? And what sort of definitions do we have in law that prevents just about anybody making such a criminal claim against someone else, just because they don't like the conduct? That's what I am talking about today. But first of all, if you're new to me, I am a barrister who helps you understand law. And very often I will make a video about something that you would like to hear about, so leave your questions and comments below. And don't forget to check out Black Belt Secrets secret where I answer more of your questions left in the comment. So, if a course of conduct is such that it becomes harassment of another person, quite rightly, there should be something in law that prevents this from happening. Most people refer to this as stalking, but harassment as defined in the act, which I'm going to explain, amounts to a course of conduct. And it is the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 that sets out the law on this. But, of course, it isn't just a piece of legislation. There are several cases that discuss and make rulings on what amounts to harassment, what amounts to a course of conduct, and whether such conduct should have criminal implications. Section 1(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 states — a person must not pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another, and which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other. Or in the case where there are two or more people, a person must not pursue course of conduct, which involved harassment of two or more persons, and which he knows or ought to have known harassment of those persons, and by which he intends to persuade any person, (whether or not one of those mentioned above) — not to do something that is entitled or required to do, or to do something that he is not under any obligation to do. And Section 2(1) provides that a person who does pursue a course of conduct in breach of either of those sections, is guilty of an offense. So what exactly do we mean by a course of conduct and what does this conduct entail? The course of conduct is a relatively straightforward thing to deal with. This is dealt with in section 7. Section 7 (3) reads: for a single person conduct on at least two occasions in relation to that person, or be in the case of two or more persons at least one occasion, in relation to each of those persons. And there are numerous case law decisions on what amounts to a separate act when defining a course of conduct, everything from 95 phone calls made during the course of an hour and half to a few letters sent some 4 and half months apart. So it isn't really the course of conduct, in terms of how often it happens, that is the difficult thing to overcome here. What is more difficult is the nature of that conduct, and whether it should attach criminal liability. And this is, indeed, something which is very much more difficult for prosecution to overcome. The closest definition we have in the Act of Harassment as provided in section 7. Section 7(2) reads: references to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress. And in the legal sense, harassment is generally understood to be improper, oppressive, and unreasonable conduct, which is targeted and calculated to produce that result of the definition in section 7. As with many areas of law, it is very important that the meaning of these definitions is not lost, not least of which, when a judge is directing the jury, as to what the jury is supposed to find in its deliberations. This was particularly relevant in the case of R v N [2016] EWCA Crim 92, where a conviction was found to be unsafe, because the judge had misdirected the jury, as to the meaning of harassment. The learned judge had directed the jury as to the meaning of harassment to be causing alarm and distress, but had omitted / left out any reference to oppression. The difference between the two, i.e. the leaving out of the relevance of oppression was a significant one, because it ultimately went to the threshold of the conduct that warranted a criminal sanction. In other words, there are many different actions, which people may find objectionable, and, indeed, may cause them alarm and distress. But that does not necessarily mean that it amounts to harassment. Somebody might receive a letter that they don't like, they might receive an email that they don't like, they may find it objectionable, it may cause them alarm and distress, but that doesn't necessarily mean all of this amounts to harassment, or that any number of letters or emails taken together would amount to harassment, either. As with most legal cases, they need to be taken on their own individual facts, for example in Thomas on News group newspapers Ltd publishing of a whole series of articles, could amount to harassment for the purposes of the Act, whereas in 2011, the Court of Appeal clarified that in addition to the statutory requirements, the prosecution had to prove that the course of conduct was calculated to cause alarm or distress. The course of conduct was targeted specifically at that individual, and that it was oppressive and unreasonable in all the circumstances. So again, as with any case, a careful assessment of the nature, and the purpose of any such conduct complained of, must be undertaken. Whether it was communication, by way of letters, emails, or whether it was by physical conduct, such as, turning up at somebody's address. Section 1(3) of the Act provides that subsection (1) or (1A), as we discussed before, does not apply to a course of conduct. If the person, who pursued it, shows either that they pursued it for the purposes of preventing or detecting crime, be that, it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law, or to comply with any condition, or requirement imposed on any person by any enactment, or that in the particular circumstances, that the pursuit the course of conduct was reasonable. So you may find yourself in many situations where you are required to send a letter to another person that they may not like. This happens all the time in legal cases, where someone else may well be alarmed and distressed at the content of the letter because, by its nature, it may be argumentative or arguing a different point of view, but provided that that communication was not sent for the purpose or to be reckless, as to whether it was oppressive and causing alarm and distress and the altogether it was unreasonable. A court may well find that in those particular circumstances, that the conduct was reasonable. Also in many cases, if you are considering suing somebody, and the Civil Procedure Rules require that you do write to that other person, seek from them any information that you need, and put them on notice if necessary, that you might be suing them. This would be in compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules. And again, provided that it was not sent with the intention of causing alarm, and distress, and being oppressive at the same time, you may well be successful in setting out your defense under section 3(B), in that you are complying with the Civil Procedure Rules, in doing so. Again, this video cannot possibly cover every argument to do with harassment, but if you do have questions, you can leave them in the comments, and I can come back to them probably over on Black Belt Secrets. So make sure you subscribe there as well. But in the meantime, I hope you found this a useful overview, as to what harassment is, and what the relative defenses are. And in the meantime, stay humble and subscribe.