Introduction: what this means for you

Most people we speak to are extremely frustrated to receive an harassment warning letter. They feel as though they haven’t been listened to by the police and that the police have just taken the other person’s account as gospel.

In this article, we’ll explore what harassment warning letters are, and importantly, what they are not. We will see that they are not a formal caution, a conviction or a court order but that they do need to be treated seriously nonetheless.

Key points at a glance

• A harassment warning letter is not a conviction, caution or court order.
• It may also be called a Police Information Notice, Prevention of Harassment Letter, Early Harassment Notice or First Instance Harassment Warning.
• The purpose is to tell you that a complaint has been made and that future similar behaviour may lead to arrest or prosecution.
• Signing the letter should not be treated as an admission of guilt. It is usually only evidence that the letter was received.
• Once a warning letter has been issued, it will be easier for the prosecution to argue that you knew, or ought to have known, that further behaviour could amount to harassment.
• There is no appeal against the issuing of a harassment warning letter.

What is a harassment warning letter?

A harassment warning letter is an informal notice issued by the police after an allegation of harassment has been made. The terminology varies between police forces. Some refer to Police Information Notices, often shortened to PINs. Others use expressions such as Prevention of Harassment Letter, Early Harassment Notice or First Instance Harassment Warning.

Although the names differ, the basic idea is the same. The police are telling the recipient that someone has complained about their behaviour and that if the behaviour continues, it may be treated as harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The letter will usually identify the type of behaviour complained about, explain that harassment is a criminal offence and warn that further similar conduct could lead to arrest and prosecution.

The warning letter itself has no separate statutory force. It is not created by the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. It does not impose the same restrictions as a restraining order, non-molestation order or stalking protection order. It is not a finding that the allegation is true. There is also no criminal offence of ‘breaching’ a harassment warning letter in the way that there is an offence of breaching a restraining order.

Its importance is evidential. It records that you have been told about the complaint and warned that future conduct may be treated as harassment. If the police later receive further complaints, the warning may be relied on as part of the evidence to show that you knew, or ought to have known, that your behaviour amounted to harassment.

When can a harassment warning letter be issued?

Following a number of early cases, the Crown Prosecution Service has issued guidance on when letters should be issued. They give the examples of where:

• A suspect doesn’t realise their actions could be a criminal offence.
• Where there has only been one provable instance of harassment so there is no prosecutable course of conduct.
• Where a complainant is unwilling to support a prosecution.

Harassment normally requires a course of conduct, meaning behaviour on at least two occasions. It must also be shown that the person knew, or ought to have known, that the conduct amounted to harassment. In some cases a person may say that their contact was well-intentioned, misunderstood or reasonable. The police may use a warning letter to remove any possible ambiguity. From that point onwards, the person has been told that the behaviour is unwanted and may be treated as harassment if repeated.

Typical examples include repeated messages after a relationship has ended, unwanted visits to a home or workplace, persistent attempts to restart contact, repeated complaints to or about the same person, or conduct that one person regards as affectionate or explanatory but the other experiences as distressing or intimidating.

Police practice should not treat a warning letter as a shortcut in a serious case. Where there is already evidence of stalking, threats, violence, coercive behaviour or a significant safeguarding risk, the proper response may be a full criminal investigation, arrest, bail conditions, a stalking protection order or another protective measure. Modern police guidance emphasises recognising patterns of behaviour, investigating properly and prioritising safeguarding.

What is the legal test for issuing one?

Strictly speaking, there is no statutory legal test for issuing a harassment warning letter because the warning itself is not a statutory order. Unlike a restraining order or stalking protection order, the court is not being asked to make an order and there is no formal hearing at which evidence is tested. The decision is an operational police decision.

In practical terms, however, there should be a rational basis for issuing the warning. The letter should identify the conduct which, if repeated or continued, is capable of amounting to harassment. The letter should be specific enough for the recipient to understand what behaviour is said to be causing concern. A vague warning that simply says ‘do not harass X’ may leave the recipient uncertain about what is and is not permitted, particularly where there are children, shared property, work issues or ongoing civil proceedings.

The warning is connected to the legal ingredients of harassment. For the basic harassment offence, the prosecution would need to prove that there was a course of conduct amounting to harassment and that the defendant knew, or ought to have known, that the conduct amounted to harassment. A warning letter is often aimed at that second issue. It may later be said that once the warning was given, the recipient could no longer credibly claim they did not know the behaviour was unwanted or potentially harassing.

There are limits to this. A warning letter does not prove that the original allegation was true. It does not prove that any later behaviour was harassment. It does not remove any available defence. It should not be treated as a substitute for evidence. The prosecution must still prove the criminal offence to the required standard if charges are brought.

Because the police are recording and retaining information about a person who has not been convicted of anything, fairness and privacy issues will arise. In an appropriate case, the issuing or retention of the warning may be challenged, although the right route will depend on the circumstances. The more immediate priority is usually to avoid any further conduct that could strengthen the allegation.

Do you have to sign the letter?

The police will ask the recipient to sign the warning letter. This should be to confirm receipt, not to admit the allegation. A person cannot normally be forced to sign a harassment warning letter, and refusing to sign does not make them guilty of anything.

Refusing to sign will not necessarily prevent the police from recording that the warning was given. If the letter is handed to you in person, posted to you or explained to you by an officer, the police may still record that you were made aware of it. If the letter contains factual assertions that you dispute, you may wish to make clear that you do not accept the allegation and that any signature is only an acknowledgement of receipt.

The consequences of ignoring the warning

The most important consequence of ignoring a harassment warning letter is evidential. If there is further contact, the police and prosecution may argue that the warning proves you knew the conduct was unwanted and that continuing it was unreasonable. That can make a later prosecution easier to bring and harder to defend, especially where the later behaviour is similar to the behaviour described in the warning.

For example, if the warning concerns repeated messages to a former partner and messages continue afterwards, the prosecution may point to the warning as evidence that the recipient knew the contact was causing distress. If the warning concerns attending someone’s workplace and the person goes there again without a good reason, the police may treat that as an escalation.

Further allegations may also lead to arrest, interview, seizure of phones or other devices, bail conditions preventing contact, or a request for a protective order. In some cases, the police may investigate not only harassment but also stalking, putting a person in fear of violence, malicious communications, public order offences, controlling or coercive behaviour, or other offences depending on what is alleged.

The safest approach is usually simple: stop the conduct complained about, do not contact the complainant directly or indirectly, keep a careful record of any unavoidable contact, and obtain legal advice before responding to the allegation. This is especially important where there are children, shared finances, a workplace connection or ongoing family or civil proceedings. In those situations, contact may need to be managed through solicitors, agreed channels or formal court arrangements.

What happens next if the warning is ignored?

If the complainant reports further incidents after a warning has been issued, the police will usually look at the whole history, not just the latest event. They may take a further statement from the complainant, review messages, call logs, social media posts, emails, doorbell footage, CCTV, witness accounts and any previous police records. The earlier warning may be included in the file as evidence that the recipient had been told to stop.

The police may then decide to take no further action, give further words of advice, arrest and interview the suspect, release them on bail with conditions, or submit the case for a charging decision. In less serious cases, the matter may remain in the magistrates’ court. More serious allegations, such as stalking involving serious alarm or distress or fear of violence, can proceed to the Crown Court.

If a person is charged and later convicted, the court may sentence them and may also make a restraining order. A restraining order is very different from a warning letter. It is a formal court order and breach of it is a criminal offence. In some cases, a restraining order may also be made following acquittal if the court considers it necessary to protect a person from harassment.

The complainant contacting you first does not automatically make it safe to reply. If you have been warned not to contact someone, a reply may still create risk, particularly if it becomes hostile, emotional, persistent or excessive. Where there is a genuine need for communication, get advice about a safer route before sending anything.

How Chetwode Solicitors can help

Chetwode Criminal Defence Solicitors advise clients who have received harassment warning letters, who are under investigation for harassment or stalking, or who have been accused of ignoring a warning. We can help you understand what the warning does and does not mean, assess whether the police have acted properly, prepare a careful response where appropriate and advise you on how to avoid unnecessary escalation.

If further allegations have already been made, early advice is particularly important. What is said in a police interview, what evidence is provided and how contact is managed from that point onwards can make a real difference to the outcome. A warning letter is not a conviction, but it is a clear sign that the situation needs to be handled carefully.

Feel free to get in touch with us if you have any questions or concerns about a warning letter you have received.