As mentioned in the scenario above, Zac has been convicted of violating sections 21 and 4 of
the Protection from Harassment Act 19972, also classified as PHA, for the numerous
harassments perpetrated against Olivia and for inciting fear of violence. Furthermore, this
written essay will determine whether Zac will be successfully prosecuted for the crimes
committed against Olivia by outlining the different elements of S.2 and S.4 offences such as
the course of conduct, the amount of harassment, instilling fear in another person, as well as
the know and ought to know being the subjective and objective approach with supporting
legal case laws.
Considering whether Zac’s course of conduct against Olivia qualifies as harassment under
both section 2 and 4 is the first important component. A further definition of the Actus Reus,
which is an essential element of the course of conduct in this scenario, can be identified in
S.7 (3a) of the PHA3, which the legislation states to be ‘a situation that involves more than
one person, the course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions’.
Additionally, this can be mirrored with the case of R v Hills4, which clarifies an example of
what is meant by a ‘course of conduct’ stating that if the incidents occurred distantly from
one another at different times, it would be less likely to establish that a course of conduct has
been engaged in therefore, this shows that it can be ignored.
However, this can be distinguished from the Lau v DPP5 case, which establishes that there
must be a cogent link used if the incident occurred at some distance in which a cogent link
must be presented. In addition, going back to the scenario, the cogent link between Zac and
Olivia became apparent when Zac learned and infuriated that Olivia had broken up with him.
To put it simply, the breakup was the catalyst of the current course of conduct events.
Additionally, there have been more than two incidents that match the course of conduct being
made, and these incidents started months after the cogent link that determined the couple’s
break up. Furthermore, the first occasion of the course of conduct being described occurred
when Olivia was pursued into her place of employment by Zac, which caused him to yell and
accuse her of dating one of her colleagues. In addition, Zac’s verbal abuse can be also used in
accordance with S.7(4)6, which outlines what is referred to as a ‘conduct of speech’. This
proves that Zac’s speech behaviour complies with the suggested behaviour, as shown by what
he said.
Another occasion of the same pattern of the course of conduct being presented was when
Olivia turned down a date that he had proposed, and in response, he sent 25 disparaging
WhatsApp messages to her in a space of an hour. This continuous behaviour here being
presented represents a pattern of repetitive and chronological behaviour. This was another
occasion where the course of conduct repeated itself. Additionally, this helps to explain
another occasion that occurred the following week when Zac sat in the park and started at
Olivia nonstop for a full week. Moreover, this can also be contrasted with the numerous
occasions established under S.47 in which the act stipulates to be that an individual’s ‘course
of conduct which causes the victim to fear that violence on at least to occasion.’ The first
occasion that took place was when Zac violently grabbed Olivia’s arm and threatened to kill
1
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, S2.
2
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, S4.
3
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, S.7(3a).
4
[2001] 1 FCR 569.
5
[2000] 1 FLR 799.
6
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, S.7(4).
7
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, S4.
the Protection from Harassment Act 19972, also classified as PHA, for the numerous
harassments perpetrated against Olivia and for inciting fear of violence. Furthermore, this
written essay will determine whether Zac will be successfully prosecuted for the crimes
committed against Olivia by outlining the different elements of S.2 and S.4 offences such as
the course of conduct, the amount of harassment, instilling fear in another person, as well as
the know and ought to know being the subjective and objective approach with supporting
legal case laws.
Considering whether Zac’s course of conduct against Olivia qualifies as harassment under
both section 2 and 4 is the first important component. A further definition of the Actus Reus,
which is an essential element of the course of conduct in this scenario, can be identified in
S.7 (3a) of the PHA3, which the legislation states to be ‘a situation that involves more than
one person, the course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions’.
Additionally, this can be mirrored with the case of R v Hills4, which clarifies an example of
what is meant by a ‘course of conduct’ stating that if the incidents occurred distantly from
one another at different times, it would be less likely to establish that a course of conduct has
been engaged in therefore, this shows that it can be ignored.
However, this can be distinguished from the Lau v DPP5 case, which establishes that there
must be a cogent link used if the incident occurred at some distance in which a cogent link
must be presented. In addition, going back to the scenario, the cogent link between Zac and
Olivia became apparent when Zac learned and infuriated that Olivia had broken up with him.
To put it simply, the breakup was the catalyst of the current course of conduct events.
Additionally, there have been more than two incidents that match the course of conduct being
made, and these incidents started months after the cogent link that determined the couple’s
break up. Furthermore, the first occasion of the course of conduct being described occurred
when Olivia was pursued into her place of employment by Zac, which caused him to yell and
accuse her of dating one of her colleagues. In addition, Zac’s verbal abuse can be also used in
accordance with S.7(4)6, which outlines what is referred to as a ‘conduct of speech’. This
proves that Zac’s speech behaviour complies with the suggested behaviour, as shown by what
he said.
Another occasion of the same pattern of the course of conduct being presented was when
Olivia turned down a date that he had proposed, and in response, he sent 25 disparaging
WhatsApp messages to her in a space of an hour. This continuous behaviour here being
presented represents a pattern of repetitive and chronological behaviour. This was another
occasion where the course of conduct repeated itself. Additionally, this helps to explain
another occasion that occurred the following week when Zac sat in the park and started at
Olivia nonstop for a full week. Moreover, this can also be contrasted with the numerous
occasions established under S.47 in which the act stipulates to be that an individual’s ‘course
of conduct which causes the victim to fear that violence on at least to occasion.’ The first
occasion that took place was when Zac violently grabbed Olivia’s arm and threatened to kill
1
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, S2.
2
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, S4.
3
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, S.7(3a).
4
[2001] 1 FCR 569.
5
[2000] 1 FLR 799.
6
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, S.7(4).
7
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, S4.
