Clarke v Hurley

Conduct prohibited by an injunction against intimidation, harassment or pestering must at least be capable of being reasonably viewed as falling within that prohibition. Requests relayed by police officers for the delivery of personal property did not meet that threshold. The question whether the respondent intended or knew that conduct amounted to harassment therefore did not arise. Where an appeal in committal proceedings is wholly hopeless and unarguable, the court may refuse to extend time for filing the notice of appeal, since reviving the appeal would serve no useful purpose.

The applicant sought the committal of the respondent for breach of an injunction prohibiting intimidation, harassment or pestering. The injunction had been made in matrimonial proceedings and served on the respondent after it was issued. While the respondent was in police custody, officers contacted the applicant at his request and asked her to deliver his Filofax, cheque book and television set. The county court rejected this complaint as incapable of amounting to harassment, but found that a later telephone call from prison breached the injunction and imposed one day's imprisonment.

The applicant appealed in committal proceedings but filed the notice of appeal late. The central issues were whether the police telephone calls could constitute harassment and whether the respondent's intention or knowledge was relevant.

1. Disposition. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the application. It declined to extend time for filing the notice of appeal because the proposed appeal was hopeless and unarguable. The order included detailed assessment of the applicant's costs.
2. Meaning of harassment in the injunction. Lord Justice Thorpe held that the county court judge was entirely right to reject the complaint concerning the police calls. Lord Justice Buxton agreed that nobody could reasonably view the events as harassment. Requests by police officers for the delivery of the respondent's property did not constitute conduct within the injunction's prohibition.
3. Intention and responsibility. The suggested issue whether the respondent intended or knew that the acts amounted to harassment was not the basis of the county court's decision. The court noted that, where an event was undoubtedly harassment, specific facts might raise whether the respondent was responsible when he had not personally performed the acts. That issue did not arise on these facts.
4. Time for appeal. Although the appeal was as of right because it arose from committal proceedings, the court considered that extending time would be pointless where there was no arguable ground of appeal. Lord Justice Buxton and Lord Justice Laws agreed with Lord Justice Thorpe's reasoning and conclusion.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2001] EWCA Civ 200, the court unanimously dismissed the application and refused to extend time for the late notice of appeal.
• Portsmouth County Court: His Honour Judge Wroath rejected the complaint concerning the police calls, found a later prison telephone call to be a breach, and imposed one day's imprisonment.