Curtis v R

A conviction under section 4(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 requires proof of a course of conduct amounting to harassment, not merely conduct causing fear of violence on two occasions. Harassment is conduct which exceeds ordinary irritations or unreasonable behaviour. It must be oppressive and unacceptable to a degree capable of sustaining criminal liability.

The frequency, connection and context of the alleged acts are relevant to both the existence of a course of conduct and whether it amounts to harassment. Intermittent, spontaneous outbursts during a volatile relationship, particularly where there are substantial periods of affectionate cohabitation and aggression on both sides, may fall short of that threshold. The jury must be directed on harassment as a separate essential element.

Curtis v R concerned an appeal against convictions at Lincoln Crown Court for putting a person in fear of violence by harassment, contrary to section 4(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and causing danger to road users. The prosecution relied on six incidents over about nine months during a volatile cohabiting relationship.

The appellant contended that the incidents did not in law amount to a course of conduct constituting harassment. He also submitted that, if the harassment count should have been stopped, the jury’s consideration of the road-traffic count had been unfairly prejudiced by unrelated evidence. The central issue was whether the evidence could properly establish harassment within the statutory scheme.

1. Appeal allowed. Both convictions were quashed.

2. Section 4(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 concerns a course of conduct which amounts to harassment. That follows from section 1(1), read with section 2. The prosecution therefore had to prove more than a connected series of incidents which caused fear of violence.

3. Section 7(2), which includes causing alarm or distress within harassing conduct, does not provide a complete definition of harassment. Applying the approach approved in Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Trust [2007] 1 AC 224 and Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1233, the conduct must be oppressive and unacceptable, rather than merely unattractive or unreasonable. The statutory threshold excludes ordinary irritations and a measure of upset in everyday dealings.

4. The six incidents were serious and on occasion involved significant force. Nevertheless, they were spontaneous episodes of ill-temper and bad behaviour within a volatile relationship, with aggression on both sides and substantial intervening periods of affectionate life. They could not properly be categorised as a course of conduct amounting to harassment. Harassment may in principle be committed against a cohabitee, but these facts did not establish it.

5. The judge should therefore have stopped the harassment count at the close of the prosecution case. In any event, the conviction was unsafe because the summing-up repeatedly addressed a course of conduct but did not direct the jury that it had to amount to harassment.

6. The road-traffic conviction was also unsafe. It depended on credibility, but the jury had heard a substantial body of unrelated evidence in the defective harassment case, which unfairly affected its assessment of the parties’ credibility.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal and quashed both convictions: [2010] EWCA Crim 123.

• Lincoln Crown Court: On 10 July 2008, the appellant was convicted of harassment causing fear of violence and causing danger to road users. He was sentenced on 1 September 2008.