Harrassment definition

berrypendel

I meant to post this here. Thought it was in legal as it was a legal question

What is the legal test/ definition of harrassment. Would the harrasser have to be aware that he was causing discomfort in the 'victim' to be guilty of harrassment?

ResearchWill

Section 10 Non-Fatal offences Against the Person Act 1997


Harassment.

10.—(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person harasses another where—

(a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and

(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.

(3) Where a person is guilty of an offence under subsection (1), the court may, in addition to or as an alternative to any other penalty, order that the person shall not, for such period as the court may specify, communicate by any means with the other person or that the person shall not approach within such distance as the court shall specify of the place of residence or employment of the other person.

(4) A person who fails to comply with the terms of an order under subsection (3) shall be guilty of an offence.

(5) If on the evidence the court is not satisfied that the person should be convicted of an offence under subsection (1), the court may nevertheless make an order under subsection (3) upon an application to it in that behalf if, having regard to the evidence, the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice so to do.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to both.

berrypendel

ResearchWill wrote: »

Section 10 Non-Fatal offences Against the Person Act 1997


Harassment.

10.—(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person harasses another where—

(a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and

(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.

(3) Where a person is guilty of an offence under subsection (1), the court may, in addition to or as an alternative to any other penalty, order that the person shall not, for such period as the court may specify, communicate by any means with the other person or that the person shall not approach within such distance as the court shall specify of the place of residence or employment of the other person.

(4) A person who fails to comply with the terms of an order under subsection (3) shall be guilty of an offence.

(5) If on the evidence the court is not satisfied that the person should be convicted of an offence under subsection (1), the court may nevertheless make an order under subsection (3) upon an application to it in that behalf if, having regard to the evidence, the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice so to do.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to both.

Thanks. How would you define

(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.

Who would decide if a reasonabe person would realise the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm.

What if the person genuinely did not believe his acts were alarming etc

ResearchWill

It would be a judge alone if the matter is tried in the district court who would decide on the reasonable person test, while it would be a jury who would decide on indictitment.

There are 2 strands to the test 1 the victim must have suffered distress etc. that test is subjective, then the second part of the test a reasonable person must have been aware that the actions would cause such distress that test is objective.

berrypendel

ResearchWill wrote: »

It would be a judge alone if the matter is tried in the district court who would decide on the reasonable person test, while it would be a jury who would decide on indictitment.

There are 2 strands to the test 1 the victim must have suffered distress etc. that test is subjective, then the second part of the test a reasonable person must have been aware that the actions would cause such distress that test is objective.

yes that is what i was trying to clarify

johnnyskeleton

I would say that the person must intend their acts to be harrassment or else be reckless as to whether their acts could be harrassing.

Part (b) then imposes an additional safeguard that the actions themselves must objectively be capable as being interpreted as harrassment.

So if I indend to harrass someone by constantly viewing their facebook page, but no reasonable person would consider that harrassment, then the offence is not made out.