English and Welsh Police Law Explained
Jul 28, 2026 · 17 min · 8 segments
In this weeks episode we look at legislation to protect people from harassment and stalking under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Today's legislation can be found at…
[siren blaring] Sections 1 and 2.
Section 2 of the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 states that a person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of Section 1 commits the offense of harassment, which is stated in Section 1 as engaging in a course of conduct that amounts to harassment of another person.
In the case of appeal in Lau 2000, it was agreed that a course of conduct needs to be a minimum of two incidents to be classed as harassment.
However, generally, the fewer the incidents and the larger the gap between them, the less likely it is that they will be seen as a course of conduct.
In this particular case, the judge went on to explain that harassments can vary in how they are carried out, and the types of incident and occasions may all play a part in the course of the conduct.
For example, causing the harassment as far apart as a yearly anniversary of an incident may be enough to constitute a course in specific circumstances.
It was also stated incidents of harassment do not need to be similar in nature, but they must be sufficiently serious to amount to harassment with a pattern of behavior that is oppressive and unacceptable, and these phrases are often used to describe harassment, as well as actions that cause a form of alarm or distress.
Harassment also covers situations where someone harasses two or more people in order to pressure another person into doing or not doing something they are legally entitled to do.
This was introduced to deal with organized campaigns of harassment, such as targeting employees, family members, or associates to force someone to change their behavior.
Whether a person ought to know their conduct is harassment is judged objectively.
When identifying if harassment has taken place, think of whether a reasonable person with the same information as the defendant would consider their conduct to amount to harassment.
This prevents individuals escaping responsibility by relying on their own subjective beliefs if their behavior would obviously be seen as harassing by an ordinary person.
However, Section 1 also recognizes that not every course of conduct is unlawful.
A person will not be found guilty if they can show their conduct was carried out for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, was required or authorized by law, or was reasonable in that particular circumstance, such as police officers carrying out lawful investigations or individuals taking reasonable steps to protect their legal rights.
[siren blaring] Sections 1 and 2.
Section 2 of the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 states that a person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of Section 1 commits the offense of harassment, which is stated in Section 1 as engaging in a course of conduct that amounts to harassment of another person.
In the case of appeal in Lau 2000, it was agreed that a course of conduct needs to be a minimum of two incidents to be classed as harassment.
However, generally, the fewer the incidents and the larger the gap between them, the less likely it is that they will be seen as a course of conduct.
In this particular case, the judge went on to explain that harassments can vary in how they are carried out, and the types of incident and occasions may all play a part in the course of the conduct.
For example, causing the harassment as far apart as a yearly anniversary of an incident may be enough to constitute a course in specific circumstances.
It was also stated incidents of harassment do not need to be similar in nature, but they must be sufficiently serious to amount to harassment with a pattern of behavior that is oppressive and unacceptable, and these phrases are often used to describe harassment, as well as actions that cause a form of alarm or distress.
Harassment also covers situations where someone harasses two or more people in order to pressure another person into doing or not doing something they are legally entitled to do.
This was introduced to deal with organized campaigns of harassment, such as targeting employees, family members, or associates to force someone to change their behavior.
Whether a person ought to know their conduct is harassment is judged objectively.
When identifying if harassment has taken place, think of whether a reasonable person with the same information as the defendant would consider their conduct to amount to harassment.
This prevents individuals escaping responsibility by relying on their own subjective beliefs if their behavior would obviously be seen as harassing by an ordinary person.
However, Section 1 also recognizes that not every course of conduct is unlawful.
A person will not be found guilty if they can show their conduct was carried out for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, was required or authorized by law, or was reasonable in that particular circumstance, such as police officers carrying out lawful investigations or individuals taking reasonable steps to protect their legal rights.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.