Harassment
This page has directions for (1) putting a person in fear of violence by harassment; and (2) religiously aggravated harassment
(1) Putting a person in fear of violence by harassment
Someone is guilty of this offence if her course of conduct, which amounted to harassment, caused another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence would be used against her and she knew or ought to have known that her course of conduct would cause the other so to fear on each of those occasions.
So, for the defendant to be guilty, you have to be sure that:
(a) she pursued a course of conduct which amounted to harassment. A course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions. Conduct includes speech. Harassment includes alarming a person or causing distress.
(b) on at least two occasions that conduct must have caused C** to fear that violence would be used against her.
(c) D** knew or ought to have known that her course of conduct would cause C** so to fear on each of those occasions. When considering the phrase “ought to have known”, you should decide whether a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think that the course of conduct would cause C** to fear that violence would be used against her.
The prosecution case is that **.
D** denies making any of these threats.
It has not been disputed that, if those threats were made in the circumstances of this case, the offence of putting a person in fear of violence by harassment would have been committed. So, the only question that you have to answer in relation to Count *, is
Are you sure that D** made at least two of those threats in the circumstances described by C**?
If the answer is “yes” she is guilty of Count *. If the answer is “no”, she is not guilty of Count *.
(2) Religiously aggravated harassment
Someone is guilty of this offence if
- he pursued a course of conduct, which amounted to harassment. A course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions. Conduct includes speech. Harassment includes alarming a person or causing distress;
- he knew or ought to have known it amounted to harassment. When considering the phrase “ought to have known”, you should decide whether a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think that the course of conduct amounted to harassment; and
- At the time of pursuing the course of conduct, or immediately before doing so, he demonstrated towards the complainant hostility based on his membership or presumed membership of a particular religious group. It is not disputed that calling someone “a ***,” is a demonstration of hostility based on religion.
The prosecution case is that between ** and **, on a number of occasions, the defendant ***
D** denies all of this.
It has not been disputed that, if the defendant behaved in the way alleged, the offence of racially aggravated harassment would have been committed. So, the key question that you have to answer, having regard to all the evidence and the directions which I give you is
Are you sure that, between ** and **, on at least two occasions, D** behaved in the way described by C** and referred to C** as a “**”?
If the answer is “yes” he is guilty. If the answer is “no”, he is not guilty
back to criminal law back to home