HARASSMENT CASE LAW (Appendix A)
a. DPP v Williams (1998)
Generating a climate of fear or uncertainty against an identifiable group of
people
b. King v DPP (2000)
A couple of genuine attempts to form a relationship cannot be harassment,
though repeated attempts could be. DPP v Ramsdale 2001: Sorting out harassing
incidents from the others. The Justices found that there was only one occasion
when L was caused significant harassment and that was when R had broken into
her house. They were of the opinion that the other incidents were either
condoned or encouraged by L (or at the very least, had not been spurned by
her). They accordingly acquitted R on the basis that there was only one occasion
of harassment which could amount to a course of conduct for the purposes of
the Act.
c. Lau v DPP (2000)
Course of conduct - a sequence of events, not two distant incidents.
d. R v Hills (2000)
Course of conduct has to be a sequence of events.
e. Pratt v DPP (2001)
Although two occasions were found to be harassment it was made very clear in
the judgement that this was a borderline case and it was the prevailing
circumstances of the two incidents that assisted in the conviction, i.e. the two
incidents occurred against the backdrop of civil proceedings in which the
defendant had an undertaking not to use or threaten violence. Prosecuting
agencies were cautioned about using harassment when such few incidents had
occurred. In this case the evidence that the offender was already knowingly
involved in civil proceedings against him (by the victim) was used to assist in the
evidence of him knowing or ought to know aspect.
f. Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd and another (2001)
Effect of conduct, not conduct itself important ALSO newspapers can harass.
g. R (Simon Howard) v DPP (2001)
Importance of evidence of the victim fearing violence.
The threats directed at the dogs in the presence of the complainant were not, on
the face of it, conduct considered by the Act as being sufficient for a conviction
(because they were threats directed at the dogs and not at the
complainant). There would need to be more, and having regard to her
background state of fear added to what was said on that occasion, she was
caused to fear violence to herself.
Buckley: Smith v DPP 2008 Guidance on requisite course of conduct for
harassment.
h. R v Patel(2004)
Incidents must be so connected in type and context that they amount to a course
of conduct. (i.e. It is insufficient to simply count the number of incidents the
issue of whether they were sufficiently connected to give rise to a course of
conduct must be addressed).
i. R v Curtis (2010) Court of Appeal Decision.
A female in a volatile relationship complained of 6 incidents over 9 months. The
defendant was convicted, but this was quashed on appeal where it was decided;
It was necessary for the prosecution to establish that the course of conduct
amounted to harassment. Harassment was tormenting a person by subjecting
them to constant interference or intimidation. The conduct had to be oppressive,
unreasonable and unacceptable campaign to a degree that would be a criminal
matter.
Obiter- although C's conduct had been dire and the incidents had been quite
serious, in the course of such a relationship, where there had been aggression on
both sides, it was not possible to say that the 6 incidents over a 9 month period
were a course of conduct that could be classed as harassment within the
meaning of the Act.
The Court of Appeal in this case identified that there had to be a course of
conduct and the behaviour needed to amount to a defined understanding of the
word, harassment, reference to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, Tenth Edition, is
to "torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation". The conduct
must be unacceptable to a degree, which would sustain criminal liability and also
must be oppressive.