Dowson & Ors v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police (Rev 1)

Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, a civil claim requires a course of conduct on at least two occasions which is targeted at the claimant, objectively calculated to cause alarm or distress, and objectively oppressive and unacceptable. The working and social context informs that assessment. The statutory threshold excludes irritations, insensitive conduct, reasonable managerial criticism and ordinary disagreements about operational decisions. Repeated capricious disagreement accompanied by abuse may nevertheless amount to harassment if the statutory requirements are met. The conduct must have a gravity capable of sustaining criminal liability, although a civil claim is not confined to cases in which a prosecution would succeed.

Six Northumbria Police officers brought linked civil claims against the Chief Constable under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. They alleged that Detective Chief Inspector Pallas had harassed them between July 2002 and July 2003 through hostile criticism, abusive behaviour, operational decisions, treatment of grievances and their eventual removal from Crime Team North.

The Chief Constable was alleged to be vicariously liable. The court heard extensive evidence concerning the individual allegations, the breakdown of working relationships within the team, and alleged psychological injury. The central issue was whether the conduct proved constituted a statutory course of harassment, rather than poor management, operational disagreement or an unattractive management style.

1. Judgment was entered for the defendant against all six claimants. The claims failed because none established conduct amounting to civil harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
2. The court applied the statutory test. Harassment requires conduct on at least two occasions, targeted at the claimant, objectively calculated to cause alarm or distress, and objectively oppressive and unacceptable. Context matters, including the nature of the working environment. The required gravity is that capable of sustaining criminal liability, while a claimant need not show that a criminal prosecution would actually have succeeded.
3. Strong disagreement about operational or managerial decisions in routine work will ordinarily not amount to harassment. A senior officer was entitled to change tactical and strategic decisions within the law. Repeated capricious disagreement, oppression and abuse could in principle satisfy the statutory test, but that was not established here.
4. Most factual allegations were rejected. The court accepted that DCI Pallas had at times been insensitive, belittling, overbearing and dismissive towards Mr Dowson, particularly during October and November 2002. That conduct could undermine Mr Dowson’s confidence and standing. It was nevertheless neither objectively calculated to cause distress nor oppressive in the requisite sense. It was not constant interference or intimidation.
5. The removals from Crime Team North were decisions made by senior officers for sound operational reasons. They were not procured by material untruths from DCI Pallas and could not found vicarious liability for harassment. The court also held that, had harassment been established, a claimant would need to show that it materially contributed to any psychological injury; damages for anxiety or other loss could in principle be available independently of psychological injury.

This was a first-instance trial. The judgment records that Coulson J had earlier struck out the claims of three other officers in Dowson and others v Chief Constable of Northumbria (No.1) [2009] EWHC QB 907; that ruling was not the judgment appealed in these linked claims.