When criticism becomes harassment
People are entitled to criticise journalists, politicians and anyone else whose work or opinions they disagree with. That criticism can be strong, repeated and uncomfortable without necessarily becoming a crime. But the way a dispute is pursued, particularly when personal information and an online audience are involved, can turn a complaint into something a court regards as harassment. On 28 October 2026, Stephen Lennon, also known as Tommy Robinson, was convicted at Southwark Crown Court of two counts of harassment causing fear of violence against journalists Andrew Young and Jacob Dirnhuber. According to the
CPS, the case involved direct and indirect targeting through social media and telephone contact, as well as the publication of images relating to the journalists and their families. Sentence is listed for 16 December 2026. While the verdict does not mean that criticising a journalist is always going to be harassment, it does provide an opportunity for us to look at where the criminal law draws a line.
What happened in Mr Lennon’s case?
The dispute followed a Daily Mail and MailOnline story about Mr Lennon while he was abroad in 2024. He criticised those involved in the article. The
Metropolitan Police account says he sent private investigators to find the journalists’ home addresses and obtain photographs outside their homes, and later published images on X, including cropped photographs showing members of one journalist’s family. The police also describe a telephone call in which the caller demonstrated knowledge of a journalist’s personal details, as well as calls and voicemails reported by the journalists. The CPS said that the jury heard from victims and witnesses and concluded that Mr Lennon’s behaviour crossed into criminality.
ITV’s report of the trial describes direct messages and a telephone call as part of the evidence.
What does the law say amounts to harassment that causes a fear of serious violence?
Harassment that causes the victim to fear serious violence will be used against them is set out in
section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The prosecution must prove that the defendant pursued a course of conduct which caused another person to fear that violence would be used against them. It must also prove that the defendant knew or ought to have known that the course of conduct would cause that fear. A ‘course of conduct’ means conduct occurring on at least two occasions. The complainant must actually have feared violence against them on at least two occasions, and the fear must have been caused by the course of conduct. The fear could arise from menacing behaviour or an implied threat; there does not need to be an explicit “I will hurt” you comment. A court will say that a defendant ought to have known that their conduct would cause the fear if a reasonable person with the same information would think that it would. Importantly, the prosecution does not have to prove that the defendant set out to cause fear. Mr Lennon’s case involved an offence under section 4, i.e. putting somebody in fear of violence, but an harassment offence under section 2 could still be committed if all the elements except the fear of violence are proven. Our
harassment guide explains the wider law and the issues that arise in defending an allegation.
Why can online posts be part of harassment?
The course of conduct does not have to happen in person or even be directed towards the complainant for it to count towards an allegation of harassment. Approaching somebody in the street could clearly be harassing if it is done knowing the other person does not want contact. The same is true of contact made online or by message. A person does not have to send a message directly to someone for online activity to affect them. A public post can identify a person, disclose information about them or encourage others to contact them. A court can consider such activity alongside private messages and conduct away from the internet when deciding whether there was a connected course of conduct and what it caused. Context matters. Publishing a person’s name in a legitimate public debate is not the same thing as repeatedly drawing attention to their home or family in circumstances that could encourage intimidation. Equally, the fact that a post attracts unpleasant replies from other people does not, by itself, prove that its author committed harassment. What was posted, the circumstances known to the defendant, any encouragement given to others, the timing and the actual effect on the complainant all need examination. Consider someone who repeatedly publishes criticism of a business owner after a dispute. The criticism may be heated and the owner may dislike seeing it, but those facts alone do not establish fear of violence. If the same person begins sharing information about the owner’s home, accompanies it with threatening messages and continues after learning that the owner fears attack, the legal assessment may be very different. Even then, the prosecution must prove the elements of the particular offence charged.
Can freedom of expression be a defence?
Freedom of expression protects speech that others may find offensive or disturbing as well as speech they welcome. It is a qualified right: restrictions can be justified, including to protect the rights and safety of others, but must have a lawful basis and be necessary and proportionate. The use of criminal law against expression therefore requires careful scrutiny of the actual conduct and context. Section 4 also provides specific defences. These include showing that the course of conduct was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, that it was pursued under an enactment or rule of law or to comply with a condition or requirement imposed under an enactment, or that, in the particular circumstances, it was reasonable for the defendant to pursue it. The available evidence and statutory wording matter; neither a claim of free speech nor an assertion that the defendant was investigating wrongdoing settles every case. For the defence, complete records can be more informative than a selection of screenshots. The surrounding conversation, earlier contact, the intended audience, deleted or missing material, the source of an account and what the defendant knew at the time may all affect the analysis. The evidence of the complainant’s fear and its connection to the conduct also needs careful examination.
What sentence can be imposed?
Harassment causing fear of violence can be tried in the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court. The maximum sentence on indictment is ten years’ imprisonment; that is the maximum for the offence, not a prediction of the sentence in any individual case. Courts assess the conduct and harm in accordance with the
sentencing guideline. A court may also consider a restraining order. Mr Lennon had not been sentenced when this article was prepared. His eventual sentence will be for the court to decide on the evidence and submissions before it. If you are being investigated or prosecuted for harassment, Chetwode Criminal Defence Solicitors can review the communications and surrounding evidence, advise on the legal tests and represent you throughout the case.
Contact us for a confidential discussion.
