Protection from Harassment Act 1997; how wide is the scope for claims?
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PfHA) is an interesting piece of legislation, not least of all because it creates both civil and criminal liability for acts of harassment. Another interesting and unusual feature of the PfHA is that it is not concerned with how the harm is caused (i.e. the form of the harassment), but rather with the effect of the harm on the victim of the harassment. Therefore, although the principle behind the PfHA was to deal with the act of stalking, the wording of the PfHA makes it clear that its extent is not limited to that issue alone.
Section 1 of the PfHA states:
“a person must not pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another, and which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.”
The wording of section 1 (“course of conduct”) establishes a requirement of more than one incident of harassment before liability under the PfHA can arise however, section 7 makes it clear that a ‘course of conduct’ can arise out of conduct on just two occasions. Section 7 also makes it clear that so long as the course of conduct causes the victim alarm or distress, a right of action will arise. This suggests only a low threshold of harm is required to establish a cause of action under the PfHA. When comparing this to a personal injury claim whereby a recognised psychological disorder must be diagnosed in order to claim damages, the PfHA is indisputably wider in scope than a typical injury claim.
There have certainly been some interesting claims brought under the PfHA which tested exactly what can amount to harassment. Take the case of Ferguson v British Gas in which the court held that the Claimant had a strong and arguable case for harassment because she had received numerous automated letters about bills she had already paid, bills incurred after her account was closed and threats to refer her to a credit reference agency. This case demonstrates the potential scope of this piece of legislation for wide-ranging and different claims.
Although the PfHA was conceived before the explosion of social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook, it looks more than capable of handling the issues these sites generate. Cyber-harassment is a reality and growing concern. The effects on victims are very really and could be just as disabling and disturbing as they are on victims of physical harassment. The PfHA offers sensible and effective remedies; injunctions against the person committing the act of harassment, which if breached can result in a prison sentence and damages for victims even in cases where a recognised psychological disorder has not been diagnosed.
It is likely the PfHA will develop an important role in providing effective remedies for victims of cyber-harassment, not least of all because of the broad scope for claims. It is important that people start to realise harassment is just as real even when committed over the internet and that there are criminal and civil sanctions for such acts.
