In English law, harassment refers to a course of conduct that causes alarm, distress, or fear of violence. It is principally governed by
statute and gives rise to both criminal liability and civil remedies, reflecting the law’s concern with repeated and oppressive behaviour
rather than isolated incidents.
Harassment is characterised by a course of conduct, meaning behaviour on at least two occasions, which a reasonable person would consider to amount to harassment of another. The defendant must know, or ought to know, that their conduct amounts to harassment, applying an objective standard.
The concept is deliberately broad, capturing behaviour that may be individually innocuous but cumulatively oppressive. Harassment does not require violence or threats; persistent unwanted contact, surveillance, or intimidation may suffice.
Harassment claims commonly arise from repeated unwanted communications, stalking or monitoring behaviour, neighbour disputes involving persistent intimidation, and patterns of conduct that cause serious distress or anxiety. The same conduct may attract both criminal
prosecution and civil proceedings.
Harassment is primarily regulated by the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which creates criminal offences and provides civil remedies,
including injunctions and damages. The Act also addresses aggravated forms of harassment involving fear of violence and stalking-related
conduct.
A finding of harassment can result in criminal conviction, restraining orders, civil injunctions, and compensation for anxiety and financial
loss. Breach of an injunction or restraining order is itself a criminal offence, underscoring the seriousness with which the law treats
sustained harassment.
Harassment occupies a significant place in both criminal and civil law, offering protection against patterns of behaviour that undermine
personal security and autonomy. Its flexible statutory definition allows courts to respond to evolving forms of intrusive and coercive
conduct.
See also: Protection from Harassment Act 1997; Stalking; Injunctions; Criminal liability; Civil remedies; Course of conduct.
February 15, 2026
In X v The Lord Advocate, the Supreme Court held the Crown cannot be vicariously liable for delicts allegedly committed by a Scottish sheriff because stage 1 fails: the relationship is not akin to employment. The key driver is constitutional structure - executive "control" is incompatible with judicial independence.
February 14, 2026
A legal practitioner alleged that a sheriff assaulted and harassed her during four incidents in 2018. She sought to hold the Crown vicariously liable for the sheriff's alleged delicts. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the relationship between a sheriff and the Scottish Government is not akin to...
January 7, 2026
Two appeals concerning whether psychiatric injury can constitute bodily harm under the Offences against the Person Act 1861. Ireland made silent telephone calls causing psychiatric illness; Burstow stalked a woman causing severe depression. The House of Lords held psychiatric injury is bodily harm and can be inflicted without physical violence....
December 20, 2025
A young woman sought an injunction against a former friend who persistently harassed her through telephone calls, threats, and pestering behaviour. The Court of Appeal upheld the injunction, extending the tort of private nuisance to protect a person lawfully present in property from harassing telephone calls, regardless of proprietary interest....
September 30, 2025
An employee claimed his departmental manager harassed and bullied him at work. He sued his employer under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, arguing the employer was vicariously liable for the manager's conduct. The House of Lords held employers can be vicariously liable for harassment committed by employees in the...
September 30, 2025
Mrs Levi suffered alarm and distress from harassment targeted at her husband by Mr Bates, who published their home address and telephone number encouraging football supporters to confront them. The Court of Appeal held that victims of foreseeable collateral damage from harassment targeted at another can claim under the Protection...
September 29, 2025
A young woman sought an injunction against a former friend who persistently harassed her through telephone calls, threats, and pestering conduct. The Court of Appeal upheld the injunction, extending private nuisance principles to protect occupiers without proprietary interests and recognising that harassment causing risk of health impairment is actionable. Facts...
September 24, 2025
A solicitor-advocate brought a harassment claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 against his former employer solicitors' firm, based on three letters containing allegations against his professional and personal integrity. The Court of Appeal reinstated the claim after it had been struck out, holding that the letters were arguably...
September 24, 2025
Mr Willoughby conducted an obsessive campaign against Mr Hayes, repeatedly reporting unfounded allegations of fraud to public authorities. The Supreme Court held that the defence of 'preventing or detecting crime' under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 requires rationality, not merely subjective belief. The appeal was dismissed. Facts Mr Hayes...
September 22, 2025
A barrister sued his former wife, a solicitor, for false imprisonment and harassment after she complained to police that he breached court orders, leading to his arrest. The Court of Appeal held that witness immunity protected her police statements from suit, and that two text messages she sent could not...
September 2, 2025
A former embassy employee brought discrimination and harassment claims against Saudi Arabia. The Supreme Court held that courts must consider State immunity even when the State fails to appear, but found the employee's administrative role was not sufficiently connected to governmental functions to warrant immunity. Facts Mrs Antoinette Costantine, a...
April 16, 2026
National Case Law Archive
April 13, 2026
National Case Law Archive
April 13, 2026
National Case Law Archive