The defendant had been acquitted of offences relating to the damage of aircraft by reason of his insanity. The court now considered the making of an order under the 1977 Act after that acquittal.
Held: The court set out the following principles: ‘Since the purpose of an order under section 5A is to protect a person from harassment by an acquitted defendant, the court must first be satisfied that the defendant is likely to pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment within the meaning of section 1 of the Act.
It does not follow that because references to harassing a person include alarming a person or causing a person distress, that therefore any course of conduct which causes alarm or distress amounts to harassment. Essentially harassment: ‘involves persistent conduct of a seriously oppressive nature, either physically or mentally, targeted at an individual and resulting in fear or distress.’
The power to make an order under section 5A is circumscribed by the important words: ‘necessary . . to protect a person from harassment by a defendant.’
The word ‘necessary’ is not to be diluted. To make an order prohibiting a person who has not committed any criminal offence from doing an act which is otherwise lawful on pain of imprisonment is an interference with the person’s freedom of action which can be justified only when it is truly ‘necessary’ for the protection of some other person.
Judges:
Toulson LJ, Langstaff J, Morris QC
Citations:
[2012] EWCA Crim 2566, [2013] 2 All ER 804, [2013] 1 WLR 1399, [2012] WLR(D) 362, (2013) 177 JP 183, [2013] 2 Cr App R (S) 28, [2013] MHLR 201, [2013] Crim LR 250
Links:
Statutes:
Protection From Harassment Act 1977
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Applied – Jose, Regina v CACD 23-May-2013
The defendant had been acquitted of having a bladed article in a public pace, and now appealed against the making of a restraining order against him under the 1977 Act.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘the requirements of the making of a . .
Cited – Calland v Financial Conduct Authority CA 13-Mar-2015
The claimant appealed against the striking out of his claim of harassment against the Authority who had contacted him in an intended review of pensions mis-selling. They had contacted him once by letter, once by telephone and once by e-mail.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing, Crime
Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.466970
