James v Crown Prosecution Service

For the purposes of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, a course of conduct may include abusive speech during calls returned by the alleged victim. It is irrelevant that the defendant did not directly initiate each particular contact. The incidents must be sufficiently related in type and context, but whether they amount to a course of conduct is generally a question of fact. The statutory knowledge requirement is satisfied where a reasonable person possessing the same information would think that the conduct amounted to harassment. A defendant need not appreciate that the conduct constitutes a criminal offence.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction by Swansea Crown Court for an offence under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The conviction followed abusive telephone calls to a social services manager on 8, 9 and 12 November 2007. The Crown Court was asked whether the calls on 8 and 9 November could form part of a course of conduct when they had been returned by the manager, and whether the claimant knew or ought to have known that his conduct amounted to harassment.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Crown Court was entitled to conclude that the incidents on 8, 9 and 12 November constituted a course of conduct.
2. Under sections 7(3) and 7(4) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, conduct includes speech and, in relation to one person, a course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions. The incidents must be related in type and context. The fewer the incidents and the further apart they are, the less likely they are to constitute a course of conduct. The issue remains one of fact.
3. The claimant’s failure to initiate the returned calls did not prevent those calls from forming part of the course of conduct. The fact that the alleged victim chose, or was obliged, to make contact might bear on whether there was harassment, but not on whether there was a course of conduct.
4. The knowledge requirement under sections 2(1) and 2(2) was satisfied. The claimant knew what he was saying, and a reasonable person with the same information would have appreciated that the conduct amounted to harassment. It was unnecessary for him to know that his conduct constituted a criminal offence.
5. The court declined to adjourn despite the claimant’s absence and his solicitors having come off the record, because legal submissions were available, no adjournment had been sought, the defendant was represented, and the appeal plainly lacked substance.

• Swansea Crown Court dismissed the claimant’s appeal against his conviction by Llanelli Magistrates’ Court.
• High Court (Administrative Court) dismissed the appeal by way of case stated.