Introduction: what a harassment allegation means for you

Being accused of harassment can be extremely frustrating. Frequently, we see allegations brought that involve individual incidents that would be reasonable and unremarkable to most people; however, they are grouped together to paint a picture of an offender that many of our clients simply do not recognise as themselves.

This guide explains the criminal law on harassment in England and Wales. It deals with harassment only. Stalking is a related but separate offence that overlaps with harassment, but stalking usually involves additional features such as following, monitoring, watching, spying or fixating on another person. If your case involves allegations of stalking, it is important to consider that offence separately. You can read our guide to the law on stalking for information about that offence.

Harassment cases are fact sensitive. The meaning of a message, the history between the parties, the timing of contact and the reason for the conduct can all matter. For that reason, early proactive legal advice can make a significant difference, particularly before a police interview or before responding to proposed bail conditions or a restraining order.

What does the law say?

The main law on harassment is contained in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. In simple terms, the Act prohibits a person from pursuing a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another person and which they know, or ought to know, amounts to harassment.

There are two version of harassment. The first is a basic offence that criminalises harassing conduct. The second is more serious and includes conduct that causes the victim to fear they will be subjected to violence.

The basic criminal offence is committed where a person pursues a course of conduct against the complainant that amounts to harassment. Unhelpfully, Parliament did not define “harassment” clearly, but they did make clear that it includes alarming a person or causing them distress. We can therefore see that harassment is not about physically hurting somebody, it is about doing things that might intimidate or upset them.

Parliament also created a more serious offence where a person's course of conduct causes another person to fear that violence will be used against them. It is more serious and the sentences that are imposed reflect that.

It’s worth noting that although the prosecution needs to prove there was a course of conduct, that can mean multiple incidents involving the same complainant, but it can also include conduct directed at multiple people even where there is only one incident alleged against each person. In practice, you would generally expect to see far more than just one or two incidents cited to prove a course of conduct.

Harassment also overlaps with civil law. A person who says they have been harassed may, in some cases, seek an injunction in the civil courts. Breaching certain harassment injunctions may itself amount to a criminal offence. This guide focuses on criminal allegations, but civil proceedings can sometimes run alongside or in the background of a criminal case.

It is also important to distinguish harassment from stalking. Stalking offences were introduced later to deal with patterns of behaviour associated with things like monitoring of and spying on another person. Stalking conduct can include following someone, repeatedly contacting them, monitoring their online activity, loitering near them, interfering with property, or watching and spying. Those behaviours also amount to harassment, but stalking is its own offence. You can read our guide to stalking from the link above.

What must the prosecution prove?

In a basic harassment case, the prosecution must prove that there was a course of conduct, that the conduct amounted to harassment, and that the defendant knew or ought to have known that it amounted to harassment. Let’s take a look at each of those points in turn.

A course of conduct

A single incident will not be enough for harassment. The law requires a course of conduct. In the ordinary case involving one complainant, this means conduct on at least two occasions directed towards that person. Practically, the fewer the number of incidents the harder it will be for the prosecution to argue it is a course of conduct.

That does not mean that any two incidents will automatically amount to harassment. The incidents must be sufficiently connected in type and context to form a course of conduct. For example, two entirely unrelated arguments months apart may not be enough. On the other hand, repeated unwanted messages, repeated attendances at an address, or a series of linked complaints or threats may be treated as a course of conduct even if each incident is not identical.

The court will consider the pattern as a whole. The fewer the incidents, and the further apart they are, the more carefully the court should consider whether they are truly connected or not.

Conduct amounting to harassment

The prosecution must prove that the course of conduct amounted to harassment. Not every unpleasant interaction is harassment. People are allowed to disagree, complain, ask questions, pursue legitimate legal rights and express themselves, even where the other person finds that uncomfortable.

The courts have repeatedly emphasised that harassment involves conduct that is oppressive and unacceptable. It is not enough that the complainant was annoyed, upset or offended. The behaviour must cross the line from ordinary irritation, disagreement or persistence into conduct that the criminal law properly treats as harassment.

Context is often central. Ten messages in one hour after a relationship has ended is likely to be viewed differently from ten messages exchanged as part of an ongoing mutual conversation. A complaint to an employer may be viewed differently from repeated malicious complaints designed to intimidate. Attendance at an address may be lawful in one context but oppressive in another.

Knowledge: knew or ought to have known

The prosecution does not have to prove that the defendant set out to commit the offence of harassment. In most cases, even guilty defendants aren’t actually setting out to harass their victim! The question is whether the defendant knew, or ought to have known, that the course of conduct amounted to harassment.

This includes an objective element. If a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think that the conduct amounted to harassment, the defendant may be treated as someone who ought to have known. That can be particularly important where a defendant says they did not appreciate how their behaviour would be received.

However, the defendant's knowledge of the background still matters. The court should consider the information available to the defendant at the time. A person who has been clearly told to stop contacting someone may find it harder to argue that they did not know further contact was unwanted. By contrast, where contact was mutual, ambiguous or invited, the issue may be much more complicated.

Fear of violence

The more serious offence requires proof that the course of conduct caused the complainant to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence would be used against them. The defendant must know, or ought to know, that the course of conduct would cause that fear.

That means that there might be a course of conduct involving 100 alleged incidents of contact but only two of them need to result in the victim fearing violence would be used against them.

Defence strategies

There is no single defence that applies to every harassment case. The right approach depends on the facts, the evidence and the precise charge. However, the following issues often arise.

No course of conduct

As with so much in the criminal law, whether there was a course of conduct is a matter of fact and degree. When a complaint is made, the police will ask the complainant to complete a log of unwanted contacts as they happen. This allows the prosecution to establish that there has been a course of conduct when the matter gets to trial and the complainant gives evidence.

The big question in many cases is whether there is a link between the incident such that they form a course of conduct or whether they are simply disparate, unconnected events that have no relationship to one another.

It is also very important to establish that the events alleged actually have something to do with the complainant. We have seen some incidents reported that feel like the complainant is trying desperately hard to find examples to use against an ex-partner. For example, in one log the complainant had listed things like “my friend saw him walking along the road she usually drives along to get to work”, “he walked past my daughter in the high street” – the complainant was not there on either occasion and was not involved on either occasion.

On a similar theme, the prosecution need to prove that the complainant is actually the person who has been the victim of the alleged conduct. In one case we successfully appealed, the prosecution alleged that “Mr Jones” was the victim of harassment by our client; however, his evidence made clear that he had never met, spoken to, or had any contact with our client. Our client had, in fact, been communicating with his wife who did not want to make a complaint or get involved in court proceedings. That case was dismissed on appeal.

The conduct was not harassment

A person may behave badly without committing harassment. The defence may accept that certain messages were unwise, emotional or badly judged, while still arguing that they did not cross the criminal threshold. This is particularly important where the conduct was part of a mutual exchange, a heated argument, or an ongoing dispute in which both sides were participating.

The question is not whether the defendant behaved perfectly. The question is whether the prosecution can prove criminal harassment.

The conduct was reasonable

The Act provides a defence where, in the particular circumstances, the course of conduct was reasonable. This is an objective question and can be difficult, but it is important in cases involving legitimate complaints, legal rights, business disputes, property issues, child arrangements or attempts to resolve practical matters.

For example, repeated contact may be reasonable if it was genuinely necessary to deal with an urgent practical issue.

Preventing or detecting crime

There is a statutory defence where the course of conduct was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime. This may arise where a defendant says they were trying to expose fraud, report criminal behaviour, gather evidence or protect someone from harm.

This defence is not a licence to harass someone simply by claiming they have done something wrong. The court will look at whether the defendant genuinely applied their mind to the possibility of criminality and whether the conduct was connected to that purpose. The more extreme or obsessive the behaviour, the harder it may be to rely on this defence.

Conduct authorised by law

There is also a defence where the conduct was pursued under an enactment or rule of law, or to comply with a legal requirement. This may be relevant in some professional, regulatory, enforcement or court-related contexts, although it is less common in ordinary private disputes.

It is also likely to be relevant where a defendant is contacting somebody to obtain information from them, such as because they intend to issue court proceedings against them or because they have already obtained a court order against them.

Identification and digital evidence

In online cases, the prosecution must prove that the defendant was responsible for the messages, posts or accounts relied upon. This may require examination of phones, devices, IP evidence, account access, metadata, screenshots and continuity of evidence. Screenshots can be useful, but they may not always tell the whole story and we have had multiple clients who tell us that important messages are missing from the screenshots complainants have provided to the police!

Context and mutual contact

Many harassment allegations arise after relationship breakdowns – that’s not always intimate relationships, we have seen a number of cases that arose from the breakdown of business relationships too. In those cases, it is often crucial to look at whether the complainant was also contacting the defendant, encouraging discussion, responding warmly at times, or reopening contact after asking for no further communication. Mutual contact is not a complete answer by itself, but it can affect whether the defendant knew or ought to have known that their conduct amounted to harassment, and whether the conduct was oppressive.

Evidence that may help your case

The most useful evidence in a harassment case is the material that shows the full picture. This may include complete message histories rather than isolated screenshots, call logs, emails, social media records, photographs, CCTV, doorbell footage, location evidence, witness statements and documents showing why contact took place.

It is important not to delete messages or edit conversations. A partial record may create a misleading impression and can damage credibility. If there are messages that appear harmful, they still need to be considered in context. Your solicitor will need to understand the weaknesses in the case as well as the strengths.

Evidence of practical necessity for you to contact the complaint can be very useful. For example, messages about child arrangements, rent, belongings, work duties, shared property or legal proceedings may explain why contact occurred. Evidence showing that the complainant replied, initiated contact, asked questions or arranged to meet will be relevant.

Where the allegation is based on fear of violence, the defence may need to examine whether the alleged fear was genuinely caused on the required occasions, whether the conduct was capable of causing that fear, and whether the defendant knew or ought to have known that this would be the effect.

What happens next: police and court process

Harassment allegations may begin with a police report from the complainant. The police will take a witness statement, obtain screenshots or phone evidence, consider bail conditions, and ask the suspect to attend a voluntary interview. In some cases, the suspect may be arrested.

The police interview is an important stage. It is usually the first opportunity for the defence to explain context, identify missing evidence and challenge the way the allegation is being framed. It is also a stage where mistakes can cause long-term damage. A person who answers questions without advice may accidentally accept parts of the prosecution case, overlook important context or make comments that are later treated as inconsistent. It is easy to be lulled into a position where you agree to something to sound reasonable or agreeable to the other person, especially if you are not used to being interviewed by police officers.

If the case is charged as basic harassment, it will usually be dealt with in the Magistrates' Court. More serious cases involving fear of violence under section 4 may be dealt with either in the Magistrates' Court or the Crown Court, depending on seriousness and allocation. Related allegations, such as assault, criminal damage, malicious communications or controlling and coercive behaviour, may affect how the case is handled.

Bail conditions are common in harassment cases. These may prohibit contact with the complainant, attending certain addresses or using third parties to pass messages. Breaching bail conditions can lead to arrest and may damage the defence. Even where the complainant contacts the defendant first, it is important to follow the precise terms of any bail conditions or court order.

Sentence and court orders

The basic offence of harassment carries a maximum sentence of six months' imprisonment. Many cases are dealt with by a fine, community order or conditional discharge, but the outcome depends on the seriousness of the conduct, the harm caused, the defendant's previous convictions, the presence of any domestic abuse context and whether the case involves aggravating features.

The more serious offence of harassment causing fear of violence carries a higher maximum sentence and can be dealt with in the Crown Court. Cases involving sustained conduct, vulnerable complainants, threats, domestic abuse, racial or religious aggravation, or repeated breaches of orders will be treated more seriously.

A restraining order may also be considered. In brief, a restraining order is a protective order that can prohibit contact with a named person whether directly or through a third party, prevent attendance at certain places, or restrict other behaviour. It is not intended to punish the defendant; it is intended to protect the person named in the order. A restraining order can be made following conviction and, in some circumstances, following acquittal. Breach of a restraining order is a separate criminal offence and carries serious consequences.

Because restraining orders can have long-term practical effects, their wording matters. Conditions should be clear, realistic and proportionate. It is important that they are actually capable of being obeyed! If an order is necessary, it should be drafted carefully so that the defendant understands exactly what is prohibited and so that it does not create avoidable problems with work, family responsibilities or legitimate practical arrangements. You can read more in our guide to the law on restraining order. INSERT LINK!!

How Chetwode can help

Chetwode Criminal Defence Solicitor defend people facing harassment allegations at every stage of the criminal process. We understand that these cases are often more complicated than they appear from a police summary or a small selection of screenshots.

We can help you prepare for a police interview, gather and preserve relevant evidence, review the full communication history, identify whether the alleged incidents truly amount to a course of conduct, and advise on whether a statutory defence may apply. Where a case is charged, we can represent you in court, challenge the prosecution evidence and make careful submissions on sentence or restraining order terms where appropriate.

Our role is to look at the allegation strategically. Sometimes the priority is to avoid charge at all. Sometimes it is to negotiate the correct basis of plea. Sometimes it is to fight the allegation at trial. In every case, the earlier we are involved, the better placed we are to protect your position.

Case studies

Missing dogs

Our client was accused of harassing a couple who had purchased a dog from her. The agreement had been clear that if either the purchased dog or the dog that remained with our client did not cope with the separation then they would be reunited and the purchase price repaid. When a vet recommended the dogs be reunited and the purchasers reneged on their agreement, our client began legal action. The purchasers responded by reporting our client for harassment and the police, surprisingly, prosecuted. Our client was cleared by the courts.

The case of the wrong complainant

Our client was accused of harassing “Mr Jones”. There was no evidence that our client had ever contacted, met or even seen Mr Jones. The police were clearly attempting to put Mr Jones in the shoes of his wife because she wanted nothing to do with the prosecution. The evidence clearly demonstrated that there had been no harassment of Mr Jones and that he was the wrong complainant for that case. Unfortunately, a magistrates court nonetheless convicted our client – before we were involved in the case – and she came to us looking to appeal. We asked, and the court agreed, to direct disclosure of allegations made by Mrs Jones and evidence that showed Mr Jones had some contact with our client. When the prosecution realised they were going to lose the appeal, they agreed not to oppose our appeal and our client’s conviction was quashed with costs awarded in her favour.

FAQs

Is one message enough for harassment?

No. Harassment normally requires a course of conduct, which means behaviour on at least two occasions. In practice, there will usually be far more than two incidents necessary to prove a course of conduct.

Can harassment happen online?

Yes. Harassment can be committed through text messages, emails, social media posts, messaging apps, online comments or other digital communication. The prosecution still has to prove the required course of conduct and that the defendant was responsible for it.

Is harassment the same as stalking?

No. The offences are related but distinct. Stalking generally involves conduct associated with fixation or unwanted pursuit, such as following, monitoring, watching or repeated attempts to contact someone. Harassment is broader and does not necessarily involve stalking behaviour.

Do I have a defence if the complainant contacted me too?

Possibly, depending on the facts. Mutual contact does not automatically prevent a harassment conviction, but it can be highly relevant to whether the conduct was unwanted, whether it was oppressive and whether you knew or ought to have known that it amounted to harassment.

Can I contact the complainant if they contact me first?

If you have been accused of harassment then you should not respond to contact from the complainant – seriously, what’s the best that can come of that? And no the answer isn’t “they might drop the charges”. If you are subject to bail conditions requiring you not to contact the complainant then you absolutely should not respond even if they reach out first. You will still be in breach of your bail!

Can I go to prison for harassment?

Yes, imprisonment is possible, particularly in serious, persistent or aggravated cases. However, many basic harassment cases are dealt with by non-custodial sentences. The outcome depends on the facts, the harm caused, the defendant's history and any aggravating or mitigating features.

Can the court make a restraining order if I am found not guilty?

Yes, in some circumstances. A restraining order may be made after acquittal if the court considers it necessary to protect a person from harassment. This is one reason why restraining orders need to be considered carefully, even where the criminal allegation is denied.

What should I do if the police want to interview me?

You should obtain legal advice before the interview. Harassment cases often depend heavily on context, and it is important that your position is explained accurately and carefully from the beginning.

Next steps

If you are under investigation or have been charged with harassment, do not assume that the case will resolve itself or that the police will understand the full context without your input. Early advice can help you avoid mistakes, preserve evidence and make informed decisions about interview, bail, plea, trial and any proposed restraining order.

Chetwode Criminal Defence Solicitor provide specialist private criminal defence advice for people facing harassment allegations. We can review the evidence, advise you on your options and help you take control of the situation before it develops further.