The court had granted an injunction to restrain the defendant from flying aircraft trailing banners abusive of the claimant. He now said that this infringed his right to free speech, and that his actions were permitted by virtue of section 1(3).
Held: Eady J drew from Hansard the proposition that the sub-section was framed with law enforcement agencies in mind. The defence: ‘is not designed to enable any Tom, Dick or Harry to set himself up as a vigilante and harass his neighbours under the guise of preventing or detecting crime.’ There must be ‘objectively judged some rational basis’ for it.
Judges:
Eady J
Citations:
[2006] EWHC 41 (QB)
Links:
Statutes:
Protection from Harassment Act 1997, European Convention on Human Rights 10
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Hayes v Willoughby CA 13-Dec-2011
Harassment Occurs on the Result, not the Intention
The claimant said that over several years, the respondent had pursued him in many ways challenging his management of a company’s affairs. Complaints had been investigated by the insolvency service and by the police who had discovered nothing to . .
Cited – Hayes v Willoughby SC 20-Mar-2013
The claimant and appellant had been employer and employee who had fallen out, with a settlement in 2005. The appellant then began an unpleasant and obsessive personal vendetta against Mr Hayes, complaining to public bodies with allegations of tax . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other, Human Rights
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430505
