Protection from the Harassment Act
Aims of the Act
The Protection from Harassment Act (1997) was introduced with the aim of tackling stalking. The Home Office guidance on the Act says, "The legislation was always intended to tackle stalking, but the offences were drafted to tackle any form of persistent conduct which causes another person alarm or distress"
The good
There are thankfully many people receiving a well co-ordinated effective response to harassment and some great police officers following strong force policies of trying to improve lives for those victims.
The bad
However, the processes which some police forces use around the Harassment Act have diluted its effectiveness, to the extent that those processes can even facilitate harassment.1
The ugly
At its worst, in those cases where the response is routinely ineffective2 some officers can become defensive, opaque, authoritarian, victim blaming and essentially quite controlling3 - exactly the behaviour a victim is trying to avoid, and which has often become a trigger (something which causes them to involuntarily recall the intense fear and sickness felt during abuse) for them.
The aim of this site is to warn victims, friends and family about signs of a failing response, with the intention of giving them enough information to protect themselves from an extended failure to deal with the harassment.
Under the Human Rights Act, you should be free to live without harassment and without having to shoulder the burden of protecting yourself from it. Unfortunately, whilst on the one hand we have the aspiration of the HRA, on the other we have to deal with the reality that it doesn't offer any protection to victims when enforcement at an operational level fails.
The Protection from Harassment Act can be made to work, but only if it is understood, respected, supported and applied consistently. This site aims to share some relevant experiences to empower future victims of Harassment and speed up their path to freedom.
People believe that victims are well protected because we have a Harassment Act and so leave it to the police rather than "get involved". When the police fail to enforce the Act, people around the victim can begin to assume the victim must be to blame if the police haven't taken action, especially if the perpetrator is saying that she's making a fuss about nothing and the police seem to be agreeing with him.
Although the ACPO guidance recommends that the police consider the history of abuse, there's no obligation for an officer to do so unless it's in local force policy to do so. Even when a local force policy is strong enough to protect against harassment, some forces are better than others at checking that the policy has actually become procedure. Too often, in practice, the procedure followed is to take whichever action is the quickest way to finalise the report
There are police officers who understand harassment fully, but that understanding can't easily be learned through training. As with civilians, a police officer has to have great empathy or to have been through it or seen someone close go through it to understand the impact of the persistent nature of it. If people (or police officers) can't understand the cumulative impact of many constant attacks on your basic human rights, then they may decide that you're making an excessive fuss about each particular incident and never consider the pattern at all.
This is why a force needs to be ensuring that its policies are being followed, rather than just creating policies that look good.
Harassment Warnings /
Police Information Notices
The original intentions of the Harassment Act were good and the wording of the Act is relatively clear.
Avoiding a wasted trip to court
The police introduced harassment warnings and more recently Police Information Notices to avoid the risk of a perpetrator claiming that they didn't realise they were breaking the harassment act when it came to CPS proceedings.
These warnings are sent to perpetrators but actually have no legal basis and merely state that the victim doesn't want the perpetrator to do X or Y any more. The police argue that they help complete the offence of harassment which requires that "The perpetrator knows or ought to know that their conduct amounts to harassment".
These "warned" offences could still be taken into account as part of a couse of conduct, which is needed to meet the requirements of an offence of harassment, so for a first offence (and a first offence only) they're a reasonable idea (provided that no other criminal offence has been committed and harassment law really is the only available option).
Avoiding any meaningful response
However, it would seem obvious that repeat warnings should not be used. Re-warning is simply a lazy way to hide behind policy and avoid dealing with harassment. If a perpetrator has already been warned, what is the purpose in warning them again other than to avoid dealing with the harassment?1
Footnotes
Issuing PIN after PIN over the same harassment gives the perpetrator a clear message that the police keep getting reports about the harassment (which confirms to the perpetrator that the harassment is affecting the victim as intended), but that the police don't intend to do anything to stop it (which confirms that it is safe to continue harassment as long as the method is varied to fall outside the warnings).
While it is still necessary to prove multiple instances of harassment within six months to demostrate a pattern (and unfortunately we can be legally harassed once every six months as the law stands), it is not necessary and in fact counterproductive for behaviour which has previously attracted a warning to be re-warned about.
A license to harass
Unfortunately, the harassment warning / Notice process is widely misapplied.
Frustratingly, many police only consider whether the Police Information Notice (a note, with no legal status) has been breached, rather than the law itself. If the PIN only says the perpetrator mustn't phone you, then being bombarded with abusive text messages in the early hours is "legitimised" because although it breaches the Harassment Act, it doesn't "breach" the warning the police have issued.
Consequently, you need to try to influence what's going on.
PIN wording
Request that any harassment warning / PIN is broad, covering any form of harassment and not just the particular behaviour you've reported on this occasion.
Avoid pointless PINs
Challenge the police over issuing subsequent harassment warnings/PINs. To reissue a warning is pointless provided that the original one had a broad enough scope. The perpetrator has already been warned and the police can refer the case to CPS1 without risk of the perpetrator saying they didn't know it was harassment. Police are often extremely assertive about what they're going to do or not do, but this is your life so if you feel you're being pressured into accepting another note to the perpetrator, tell the police how it would make you feel. If you feel you're not being heard, get the response in writing (email with your concerns for an email reply).
Beware of Target Culture
Be aware that police have a caseload and targets. Harassment is complex, drawn out over multiple times/dates and if you're lucky, recorded as multiple incidents. To take a harassment case through to CPS is a huge effort with little reward in terms of "stats"2. Too much information can put the police off. Keep it simple for them, bearing in mind the above. Make sure you report and request incident numbers for the big things (if the officer won't record an incident get a reason in writing by emailing to ask why) but keep your own notes of times/dates about that which is more difficult for the police to process as an incident (indirect threats through third parties that the police wouldn't recognise as aimed at you for instance).
Early Intervention is key, and recommended by ACPO
Once they've decided that harassment is taking place, some officers believe that offences such as Malicious Communications, Computer Misuse or Witness Intimidation must only be considered as part of the pattern of harassment. They're wrong - ACPO guidance tells them to prosecute any associated crime as early as possible to nip the harassment in the bud. They're not obliged to follow the guidance unfortunately, but they clearly are allowed to prosecute other crimes that occur during harassment and it is a matter of choice when they fail to do so.3
Whilst a pattern of incidents within 6 months is required to prosecute harassment, only a single PIN should be needed to stop a defendent claiming that they didn't realise harassment was harassment.
"Measure what is important; don't make important what you can measure." - Robert McNamara
Statistics and targets are a real problem for harassment. A harassment case can take a lot of time to understand, investigate properly and process through CPS. The more evidence that's gathered, the more reluctant some officers are to consider the case as a whole. It's unclear what the targets are for harassment, but an HMIC report shows in recommendation 3 that investigating harassment thoroughly may be a barrier to career progression.
You may come to suspect that incidents are not being recorded because it doesn't look good for the stats to have several unsolved incidents. If that is the case, then it probably results from measuring the wrong thing and skewing the direction with the targets. I believe targets vary from force to force, so there's no way of knowing whether this affects the response in your area.
If you are assigned an officer who doesn't see harassment as a real crime, you'll probably not be able to persuade them away from their view. Just get your incident number and hope you get a more experienced and empathic officer the next time (training alone is not enough - they need to be able to see things from your perspective, that is the perspective of a victim of crime who is as deserving of protection and justice as any other victim of crime).
Impact of a failed response
Harassment has many impacts on the victim, both psychological and physical. You can feel empty, frightened, sick and may develop a range of PTSD symptoms. Pyschological symptoms can be extreme. It is important to keep telling yourself that these feelings and symptoms have a root cause, and that the root cause needs to be addressed to truly solve the situation.
It is perfectly normal to be highly anxious, depressed or to cry randomly in public under the circumstances. Don't put yourself under pressure about it - it's the impact of the harassment and you should not have to change your behaviour to hide the harassment.
One experience that you may well have is a prolonged state of hypervigilance. Hypervigilance is part of your body's defence against threats. It is not paranoia, but could easily be mistaken for paranoia by someone who didn't recognise its cause.
You will notice people controlling other people everywhere and pick up attitudes based on people's choice of words far more quickly than you would have previously. It can isolate you and make you tire easily. However, it's a normal response to a prolonged threat.
Look after yourself physically and emotionally1.
Try to be around people as much as you can even if you don't trust many people any more. People who minimize your situation do not always mean to - some people can only cope by pretending nothing's wrong. They can still make you smile occasionally and still support you in other ways. You need a social life even if your mood is fighting it.
You also need to eat properly, even if you're cooking for one, not least to replace certain vitamins and minerals which are known to be lost during stress (B12 and Magnesium for instance).
If you have time and can join a support group or two, you can get together outside the group to support each other in venturing out again, or just staying in with company.
Try not to drink as a reaction to the problem. It can't help you and could well make things worse, not least if you have to report something to the police while drunk. If you do drink already, limit it while you secure your future. You need focus and stability.
Failure to assess or manage Risk
Risk management
Many forces have moved their handling of harassment out to neighbourhood policing teams. The officers involved can have very different opinions as to what constitutes harassment, or whether there in fact is such a thing as harassment.1.
There is no enforced requirement for a risk assessment to be completed and logged centrally and no requirement to refer back to the case history when completing one. In fact, to a large degree the force's response comes down to an officer's personal view of whether you are at risk (and following that, the views of their sergeant), which of course requires both of them to believe harassment to be a crime worth spending time on.
To manage risk effectively:
Harassment needs to be investigated as a pattern, by a team of officers who specialise in harassment investigation.
Risk should be managed throughout the harassment, based on the evidence shown by the pattern of harassment and not oscillate wildly on an incident by incident basis depending on who filled in the form and what they thought was a risk or not. (For instance if you have already been isolated from all but your most loyal friends, you're no longer at risk of being deliberately isolated from friends so for some officers it lowers your risk assessment regardless of whether the perpetrator is still trying to do it)
ACPO guidelines should be made policy.
It may not appear as low-cost as the current arrangements. However, it would actually be effective and therefore deliver cost savings in the long term: Perpetrators would learn that the police will tackle them; More victims would be protected before their lives are ruined or ended. It could also lead to better trust in the police.
Mental Health
The police are not mental health professionals and don't want to be dealing with mental health issues. However, mental health is a big problem in harassment.
Alcohol abuse for instance can lead to several different illnesses involving paranoia, which often precipitates the desire for relentless control.
Neither the frontline officer nor the victim is able to make an accurate mental health assessment. A doctor can arrange one, but only if you are married. If you've divorced or never married, the doctor will not arrange to assess the perpetrator unless either the police record an offence which suggests a danger or the perpetrator voluntarily goes for an assessment.
In the absence of a current marriage to the perpetrator, since no-one else can intervene in a mental health issue without an offence having been recorded, we are fully dependent on the police to manage the mental health risk. Where there are any mental health issues, the risk management should not be entrusted to neighbourhood police. There should be an assessment of risk by someone who's qualified to judge that risk, taking into account previous similar cases and their outcomes.
-
The following post shows with brutal honesty how some frontline police respond to harassment. It shows us that there are police with no awareness of what harassment is and who are not safe to be left to assess harassment situations.
https://www.ukpoliceonline.co.uk/index.php?%2Ftopic%2F50086-harassment-warning%2Fpage-5#entry544163
The above page used to be freely accessible, but the ukpoliceonline site now requires personal details in order to read it, so I've not made it clickable.
To summarize what it says: Harassment warnings are part of "the world of extra work", no evidence is collected because they don't want to "clutter up the office with pointless things" and harassment warnings are associated with "pathetic nonsense".
Unfortunately, dealing with harassment needs both a brain and a willingness to engage it.
We should not single this officer out as a bad egg. To do so would be to address a symptom rather than the cause. There should be hundreds of officers rushing to correct his position on the site but there aren't. It's the problem of apathetic eggs which really needs fixing. This culture can only survive where the majority ignore it or only shut down the odd more public display of it. Refusing to investigate harassment needs to be made formally unacceptable across the whole police service.
Further defence against Harassment Act misuse
Victim Impact
If you're left constantly in tears or in fear as a result of deliberate action to make you so, it's harassment. However, you may not present tearfully to the police because you're relieved when they take an interest and full of optimism that something might be about to be done to offer relief from your pain. It's important that you give examples of the alarm and distress that the actions cause you and give examples of how you usually feel.
Bring a friend
Know what you're up against: Don't allow the police to class you as hysterical, but allow them to know you're in fear. It's incredibly difficult to be clinically logical when you're an emotional wreck, but remember that many police have little time for emotions. If at all possible have someone supportive with you when you meet the police. Ideally, that person should be someone who can help you present your situation clearly and take notes for you on what is said.
Subject Access Requests
If you feel that the response is repeatedly unsympathetic, it will help to complete a Subject Access Request. While the police have forms which suggest you can only submit a SAR about a particular incident, if you phone the people who take the SARs, you can explain that harassment is not one incident so you want notes from all incidents over a range of time. You can understand a great deal about how the officers see your case from the tone and content of the notes
Making a complaint
If you want to make a complaint, your options are limited1.
A complaint takes months. While it may be worth complaining if there's an officer who is hiding behind policy to avoid dealing with harassment, it's not likely to get change the outcome in time to allow a case to be made to the CPS covering a pattern of behaviour within the last 6 months (the limit for harassment without physical violence) and unfortunately the next officer to attend could well be aware of your complaint against their colleague. However, if you make a valid complaint where there is misconduct, you will at least help to protect other victims.
IPCC/Local resolution/Local investigation. You can't complain to the IPCC directly. If you get a completely unsatisfactory response from an officer, you can only complain to the force. They generally favour Local Resolution, which is effectively an informal way to deal with minor complaints. Local Investigation would be offered if there were a more serious complaint and an IPCC referral for the most serious - the police choose which, which of course is a huge potential conflict of interest. Furthermore, the police are allowed to refuse investigation of anything over a year old, so you've got to fit the complaints process in around the abuse, divorce, trying to get yourself to a place of safety etc. If you can get a friend to help, navigating the complaints process for you is one way they can help.
CPS. You can't contact the CPS directly, but if they've failed to take up a case you get the chance to appeal and in doing so, if you're fairly sure it breached the Harassment Act (or any other) it's worth checking that the police actually provided them with all the evidence. Re-state the evidence you think they should have had in the appeal.
Police and Crime Commissioner. The PCC only has the authority to set policy and work with the Chief Constable. If policy is not being followed, they'll probably refer you back to local resolution (unless you're lucky enough to have someone like Vera Baird for a PCC, who really takes this seriously).
Your MP. They may have some influence locally or may be able to raise issues nationally. Whether they can help you directly is not something we've tested, but you may be able to help change the system. You might want to check their Hansard voting record to get a view on whether they're likely to be supportive before you try to summarize several years of harassment into something they'll have time to read and understand.
Changing things for Harassment Victims
Manipulation of agencies
If you've not had ficticious revenge reports to the police, you're doing well. In order to make the police think it's just a 50/50 acrimonious divorce (I'll get to the 50/50 assumption in a minute), your perpetrator may well attempt to match each harassment warning with one of his own. He can use any allegation that can't easily be proven or disproven. The police may reject his request for a harassment warning against you, realising that it's in revenge. However, they may just issue a PIN against you rather than trying to work out whether it's true or not. There is no requirement to prove harassment to issue a PIN1.
What they almost certainly won't do, but should, is reprimand him for wasting police time.
The 50/50 myth
We have heard both the Police and a PCC make statements that many harassment cases are "50/50", or "six of one, half a dozen of the other", so let's debunk that myth.
Firstly, harassment can only ever be qualified, not quantified.
Secondly, even if it were quantifiable, 50/50 would be unlikely. Unless two people texted each other exactly the same threatening texts and were impacted equally by them, it can never be 50/50. 50/50 is just lazy and suggests a failure to examine the evidence. Where multiple reports of harassment are coming in from two parties, it is more likely than not that one is being harassed and the other is trying to make it look as if it's 50/50 to avoid a meaningful police response because they want to retain that control over the other.
Finally, even if there had been an occasional reaction from some victims, you'd expect to see those calculated as 80/20 or 70/30. Quoting 50/50 is just a sign a lack of interest in finding out who is the real victim and protecting them, and it is essentially Victim Blaming.
We need to stop supposedly pro-change2 people buying into that myth, so if you hear it, challenge it. Ask how they measure that it's 50/50, and whether they have any 25/75 cases.
The iniquitous necessity test
The "Necessity Test"3 is the most ridiculous excuse not to record an incident. It requires that the victim be in immediate danger in order to record an incident.
Requirement to change your phone number or face Victim Blaming.
We also need to end the practice of the police requiring victims to change their phone numbers4, in many cases time after time. It's blaming the victim to tell them off for not doing so, but it's also a failure to manage the risk and a failure to protect the victim.
Keep reporting
Even more so when you've had a poor response from the police, I'd echo all the agencies' advice to keep reporting each incident. If possible keep your own records of times, dates and specifics of the reports too. Where the response is broken, it can only remain broken if it succeeds in making the victims give up reporting the crimes. If we keep reporting and insisting on incident numbers, ignoring the harassment will stand out like a sore thumb.
If the police try to issue you with a revenge harassment warning, tell them that you believe it's in revenge and actually constitutes more harassment. Don't accept it unless they can show you evidence of where your behaviour has fallen short.
Everyone has to talk the talk but many don't walk the walk with harassment. You may get an idea of the ones who will also walk the walk from whether they really listen.
We had an incident of harassment not recorded as an incident because it failed a "necessity test": since the report was made after the perpetrator had left the scene it was no longer incident-worthy. Obviously for harassment (most crime?) the best move is to get safe, then call the police. The necessity test needs scrapping.
You should not be required to change your phone number in order to retain police support. It doesn't make you safer - it merely makes you less likely to report further harassment since you won't receive the messages. The perpetrator will quite possibly still think you receive them and may escalate if they're not getting a response. Although you should avoid responding (the perpetrator can use this to make it look like you're happy to be contacted), by hiding the messages from yourself you would then have no warning of any escalation / threats.
You have a right to keep your number AND a right not to be harassed. Contrary to what the police may claim, it's no small task to change a phone number, especially when the people you've given it out to are not necessarily in your phone's contacts and half of those who are told keep trying to use the old number.
Your friends and family may be able to be told with one text and may all update their records immediately if you're lucky, but then you also have: utility companies, banks and credit card companies, solicitors, employer(s), cable/satellite, internet service provider, ebay, paypal, apple and microsft websites (who use your number to prove who you are - you might even lose access to those accounts completely if you forget your password and have changed your phone), insurance companies, doctors, dentist, optician, schools, sports clubs etc., all of which also have to waste their time changing their records of your number just to allow your abuser to continue to try to abuse you and get away with it.
You shouldn't have to make substantial adjustments to your life just to allow the perpetrator to continue without the police having to intervene. Furthermore, if you do change your number and the perpetrator finds it out, the police should not be telling you to change it again, since he'll find it out again. They should of course be asking him why he's taken steps to find out your new number when he knows he shouldn't be contacting you.
If you do change your number, consider leaving the old sim (maybe transferring the number to a payg sim which you'd unfortunately have to top up) with a trusted friend so that they can keep an eye on the risk.
