A, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions

For an offence under section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the prosecution must establish a course of conduct involving at least two occasions which caused the victim to fear that violence would be used against them. Threats directed at property may constitute threats of violence against the person living there where the evidence supports that conclusion. The court assesses the magistrates’ actual findings of fact, rather than a hypothetical reconstruction of their reasoning. A victim need not have been unduly concerned on an earlier occasion if the findings establish that she was nevertheless threatened and intimidated, and therefore put in fear of violence.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated from the decision of Oxfordshire magistrates dated 4 February 2004. He had been convicted under section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 after repeatedly visiting the complainant’s home, making threats and demanding money. The magistrates found that threats to burn down the house in which she lived had put her in fear of violence on at least two occasions.

The case stated raised whether those findings could support the conviction and whether an earlier threat, which the complainant had initially said did not unduly concern her, could be treated as contributing to the necessary course of conduct.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court answered the first part of the magistrates’ question in the affirmative. The additional hypothetical question was disregarded because its suggested findings did not correspond with the actual findings in the case stated.

2. Section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 requires proof of a course of conduct. That requires at least two occasions on which threats or other conduct caused the victim to fear that violence would be used against her.

3. Following Caurti v Director of Public Prosecutions [2002] CLR 131, threats made against another person do not suffice where the complainant was not thereby fearful for her own safety. The relevant question was therefore whether the threats concerning the house in which the complainant lived had caused her to fear violence against herself.

4. The magistrates’ findings showed that the complainant had felt threatened and intimidated throughout the relevant six-month period, including on the first occasion when the house-burning threat was made. Her evidence that she had not been “unduly concerned” did not negate that finding. The magistrates were entitled, and in the circumstances bound, to conclude that the threats to burn the house had caused fear of violence against her on at least two occasions.

5. The conviction was accordingly upheld. A Legal Aid assessment was requested.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated from the Oxfordshire magistrates’ decision of 4 February 2004 was dismissed.