Protection from Harassment Act 1997

It is possible that as a campaigner you could get prosecuted for harassment or have an injunction put in place against you.

In Northern Ireland, the Protection from Harassment Order 1997 applies. Someone found guilty of harassment could be fined or sentenced on indictment for up to two years and fined; or on summary conviction for up to six months, along with a fine. Harassment can also be pursued through a civil action for pursuit of damages. Other remedies against harassment include an injunction and a restraining order under the same legislation.

Whilst this act does cover Scotland, the provisions are different to England and Wales (they're covered by s1-7 and Scotland is covered by s8-11). The legislation does not apply to Northern Ireland with the exception of s13 which makes provision for separate legislation there.

The Protection from Harassment Act 1977 was established to protect people from stalkers, but it has been used on numerous occasions to prosecute peaceful demonstrators.

The law enabled an injunction to be put in place to prevent one person from repeatedly harassing another. If the injunction is breached, it is a criminal offence.

'Injunction' is an English concept. The comparable concept in Scotland is an 'interdict'.

Such injunctions are based on civil law (i.e. without going through a prosecution, one person can have an injunction placed on another). This is an invaluable instrument for people who are being harassed or stalked, as action can be taken faster than going through courts.

Where this becomes relevant to campaigners, is that those who you may seek to influence may put an injunction in place under this law, in effect preventing you from campaigning against them.

This is not what the original law was intended for, but in 2005 the introduction of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA) significantly widened the legal definition of harassment. Originally, you would need to approach one person twice in a manner that might cause them distress to meet the minimum standard of what could be construed as harassment. From 2005, approaching two people just once could be construed as harassment.

This change in the law means that in theory the Police can end any protest based on harassment grounds. It also means that companies can apply for an injunction to prevent what is any other sense would be considered legal protest. And as described in the case study below, this does get put into practice.

Case study

BAA owns seven airports in the UK (including the largest, Heathrow) and has interests in many abroad as well. In 2007, BAA applied for an injunction against to prevent environmental campaigners planning a protest at Heathrow Airport.

BAA was granted an Order that only four individuals could represent a wide range of campaigning interests (such as the RSPB, and The World Development Movement) in any protest at Heathrow Airport. The terms of the Order also meant that BAA would represent all the airport’s users and service providers (including Transport for London and the London Underground), even though neither these or other interests were actually notified or consulted about the injunction.

The High Court, however, massively scaled back the terms of this injunction. While they recognised BAA’s private property rights, but rejected the assertion that a protest came under the legal definition of ‘harassment’. The court stated that a harassment order could not cover potentially thousands of unrepresented individuals.

What was reassuring for campaigners was that the judgment was clear that the Harassment Act cannot, in most cases, be applied to peaceful demonstrations. Which means that if a claimant wants to impose an injunction to prevent a protest, they are required to provide a higher standard of proof (compared to the kind of harassment that the act was designed to deal with), similar to the kind of evidence they would need to provide if the matter was to go to court.

Nonetheless, it is important for campaigners to be aware that injunctions may be placed on them on harassment grounds, and that unlike in this case, these injunctions may be upheld.

Kate Harrison, a solicitor, who represented environmental groups under the BAA injunction hearing, gives a legal perspective.