MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
105. That summary of the law was approved by the Divisional Court in Scottow -v- CPS [2021] 1 WLR 1828 [24], to which Warby J added [25(1)]:
“A person alleging harassment must prove a ‘course of conduct’ of a harassing nature. Section 7(3)(a) of the PfHA provides that, in the case of conduct relating to a single person, this ‘must involve … conduct on at least two occasions in relation to that person’. But this is not of itself enough: a person alleging that conduct on two occasions amounts to a ‘course of conduct’ must show ‘a link between the two to reflect the meaning of the word “course”‘: Hipgrave -v- Jones [2004] EWHC 2901 (QB) [62] (Tugendhat J). Accordingly, two isolated incidents separated in time by a period of months cannot amount to harassment: R -v- Hills (Gavin Spencer) [2001] 1 FLR 580 [25]. In the harassment by publication case of Sube -v- News Group Newspapers Ltd [2020] EMLR 25 I adopted and applied this interpretative approach, to distinguish between sets of newspaper articles which were ‘quite separate and distinct’. One set of articles followed the other ‘weeks later, prompted, on their face, by new events and new information, and they had different content’: [76(1)], [99] (and see also [113(1)]).”
106. Factors (vi) to (ix) from Hayden are likely to have equivalent resonance in protest cases, which similarly engage Article 10 (and Article 11). It is relevant to consider the speech that is alleged to amount to or involve harassment. Any attempt to interfere with political speech requires the most convincing justification, and the most anxious scrutiny from the Court: Hourani -v- Thomson [2017] EWHC 432 (QB) [212]; Hibbert -v- Hall [2024] EWHC 2677 (KB)] [154]. The objective nature of the assessment of whether the conduct amounts to or involves harassment ( Hayden factor (vi)) is critical to ensuring proper respect for Article 10. 107. The course of conduct, viewed as a whole, must be assessed objectively. It is not necessary for each individual act that comprises the course of conduct to be oppressive and unacceptable. Individual acts which, viewed in isolation, appear fairly innocuous, may take on a different complexion when viewed as part of a bigger picture: Hibbert -v- Hall [152]. 108. Finally, the claim of harassment pursued against Mr Curtin, at trial, does not allege that Mr Curtin has breached s.1(1) of the PfHA. It is not alleged that he has targeted any individual. The claim alleges a breach of s.1(1A). As such, the Claimants must also demonstrate, not only that Mr Curtin pursued a course of conduct, which involved harassment of two or more persons, which he knew or ought to have known involved harassment of those persons, but also, under s.1(1A)(c) that he intended, by that harassment, to persuade any person (which could include either those who were harassed or the First Claimant) not to do something that s/he/it was entitled or required to do, or to do something that s/he/it was under no obligation to do. G: The Third Contempt Application 109. As already noted (see [52] above), the Third Contempt Application, against Mr Curtin, was issued by the Claimants on 17 June 2022. It was supported by the Sixth Affidavit of Ms Pressick and the Second Affidavit of Mr Manning. The evidence was heard
100
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator