Kosar v Bank of Scotland Plc (t/a Halifax)

Section 7(5) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 defines “person” as an individual only when the phrase concerns the person subjected to harassment. It does not displace the general rule in the Interpretation Act 1978 that “person” includes a body corporate. Accordingly, a company is capable of committing the criminal offence of harassment under section 2(1) of the 1997 Act.

The appellant brought a private prosecution alleging that the respondent bank had committed harassment contrary to section 2(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. A District Judge sitting in the Manchester Magistrates’ Court ordered, following an ex parte hearing, that the information be withdrawn because it did not disclose an offence known in law.

On appeal by way of case stated, the central question was whether section 7(5), which provides that references to a person in the context of the harassment of a person are references to an individual, prevents a company from being a perpetrator of harassment.

1. The appeal was allowed. The District Judge’s answer was wrong, and the information was not incapable of alleging a criminal offence merely because the alleged perpetrator was a company.

2. The general rule in Schedule 1 and Part 1 of the Interpretation Act 1978 is that “person” includes a body corporate or unincorporate unless a contrary intention appears.

3. Section 7(5) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 expresses a contrary intention only in relation to the person who is the victim of harassment. The words “in the context of harassment of a person” identify the person subjected to the conduct.

4. The wording does not extend the individual-only qualification to the perpetrator. If Parliament had intended to restrict liability to individuals, it could have referred to “this provision” or otherwise used wording directed to perpetrators. It did not do so.

5. Section 7(5) therefore does not preclude a company from committing an offence contrary to section 2(1) of the 1997 Act. The High Court answered the stated question “No”.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal by way of case stated and answered the stated question in the negative.

2. Manchester Magistrates’ Court: the District Judge ordered that the information be withdrawn on the basis that it disclosed no offence known in law.