[philswan]

Hi All

Looking for advice on dealing with the following....

There was an incident involving a number of youths (no injures just handbags at 10 feet stuff).

One of the known local problem youths is blaming a particular youth for causing the original incident and keeps 'asking' around as to where he is including threatening language and 'I know where you live' talk.

I know I could issue a harassment warning letter, witnesses seem unwilling to come forward at present for fear of reprisals.

Any advice on how you to proceed would be great.

[PLM]

philswan, on Dec 6 2009, 06:10 PM, said:

Hi All

Looking for advice on dealing with the following....

There was an incident involving a number of youths (no injures just handbags at 10 feet stuff).

One of the known local problem youths is blaming a particular youth for causing the original incident and keeps 'asking' around as to where he is including threatening language and 'I know where you live' talk.

I know I could issue a harassment warning letter, witnesses seem unwilling to come forward at present for fear of reprisals.

Any advice on how you to proceed would be great.

Has anyone actually made an allegation of an offence? I mean, to be frank this sort of petty silly nonsense has gone on for years and to be honest, I can well remember the day when they'd have been left to sort it out amongst themselves. And rightly so. Sadly, we're such a nanny state now-a-days and the Police are a one-stop service for sorting out people's petty disputes and squabbles, which they have often helped create themselves in the first place. Probably not the answer you wanted to hear - but the Harassment Act was brought into being to help deal with the serious issue of Stalkers. One of the most grossly mis-used offences on the statue books and never the intention of the legislators to deal with local youths having a tit for tat...

[lonestar]

PLM, on Dec 6 2009, 08:23 PM, said:

Has anyone actually made an allegation of an offence? I mean, to be frank this sort of petty silly nonsense has gone on for years and to be honest, I can well remember the day when they'd have been left to sort it out amongst themselves. And rightly so. Sadly, we're such a nanny state now-a-days and the Police are a one-stop service for sorting out people's petty disputes and squabbles, which they have often helped create themselves in the first place. Probably not the answer you wanted to hear - but the Harassment Act was brought into being to help deal with the serious issue of Stalkers. One of the most grossly mis-used offences on the statue books and never the intention of the legislators to deal with local youths having a tit for tat...

It is this "petty silly nonsense" that leads too often to gun and knife crime at an increasingly early age though these days, maybe letting them sort it out for themselves is not so wise. What about the victim, why should it be acceptable for people to be scared in their own houses, this all seems like a strange view point to me.

[ike-fungipoke]

If he is asking around then it would indicate he is not speaking to the person he is looking for. If that's the case who is he harassing?

[lonestar]

"A person whose course of conduct causes another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against him is guilty of an offence if he knows or ought to know that his course of conduct will cause the other so to fear on each of those occasions."

By asking around for information and having made threats already this is surely a form of harassment - it isn't necesarry to speak directly to someone to scare them, the actions demonstrate the intention.

[ike-fungipoke]

I suggest you read that definition you just quoted again, specifically about fearing on each occasion. If he wasn't present how could he fear?

Oh my nights dementia caused me to forget that anyone can believe the intended victim would be affraid. Yes you are quite correct, my mistake.

This post has been edited by ike-fungipoke: 06 December 2009 - 09:42 PM

[DTM]

lonestar, on Dec 6 2009, 08:49 PM, said:

"A person whose course of conduct causes another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against him is guilty of an offence if he knows or ought to know that his course of conduct will cause the other so to fear on each of those occasions."

By asking around for information and having made threats already this is surely a form of harassment - it isn't necesarry to speak directly to someone to scare them, the actions demonstrate the intention.

This is now only one occasion and not two. I think its been this new format for about 2 years or near to 2 years in less my force have their own version on one occasion.

Philswan

Are you a police officer, community support or member of public?

obviously the answer will be different depending which you fall into

[lonestar]

ike-fungipoke, on Dec 6 2009, 09:29 PM, said:

I suggest you read that definition you just quoted again, specifically about fearing on each occasion. If he wasn't present how could he fear? Try again.

But you don't have to be present to fear something, if person x goes up to a group of people saying he is going to kill person y and the group of people tell person y he will be fearful. If person x does this multiple times, or variances along the same lines, then the basics of that definition have been met in that the actions of person x have caused fear on a number of seperate occasions. Nowhere does it say the two parties must be present.

The law is open to interpretation, there is sufficient scope to make a case on the grounds described, it is never just black and white.

[mikeh2000]

Never harassment in a million years, as PLM pointed out, the Harassment Act was for serious issues like stalkers, not petty squabbles, ie text messages and that old chestnut, Facebook!

Unfortunately, as someone pointed out to me once, "The public get the Police force that they deserve", ie if they use the Police to be their babysitters, then don't come crying because there are no officers on the streets!

[desmata]

As far as i can see we have a 3rd party report of a person trying to find someone to 'sort them out'.
How has this come to police attention? has a report been made? if no then that’s it. if yes then the youth in question needs to avoid this person and try and not get involved in fights.

I cant see a harassment warning being any use and if you can get multiple statements from people who state this person said he wanted to sort someone out and we went and told him about it then good luck with that.

Cant see how its a harassment unless a complaint has been received.

But until its established where this complaint has come from its hard to resolve it.

[Sectioned Detection]

Are you saying that if I sent harrasing emails to the WRONG person the intended receipiant would still be the victim?

[ike-fungipoke]

lonestar, on Dec 6 2009, 09:46 PM, said:

But you don't have to be present to fear something, if person x goes up to a group of people saying he is going to kill person y and the group of people tell person y he will be fearful. If person x does this multiple times, or variances along the same lines, then the basics of that definition have been met in that the actions of person x have caused fear on a number of seperate occasions. Nowhere does it say the two parties must be present.

The law is open to interpretation, there is sufficient scope to make a case on the grounds described, it is never just black and white.

you are correct the law is open to interpretation and your example here shows that, you think it's shows harassment I would be looking at threats to kill! Thanks for the interpretation lecture.

[lonestar]

ike-fungipoke, on Dec 7 2009, 09:58 AM, said:

you are correct the law is open to interpretation and your example here shows that, you think it's shows harassment I would be looking at threats to kill! Thanks for the interpretation lecture.

What is the general verdict on threats to kill as a useful offence, in my local force area, they "do not arrest for threats to kill" and find another way if needed, this was a response PC talking and obviously there are officers who would arrest for it. Is it just a case of it being difficult to have enough information to make the determination initially?

[ike-fungipoke]

Threats to kill is a perfectly reasonable offence to arrest for just the same as any other if the facts fit the offence.

Are you a police officer?

[lonestar]

ike-fungipoke, on Dec 7 2009, 10:29 AM, said:

Threats to kill is a perfectly reasonable offence to arrest for just the same as any other if the facts fit the offence.

Are you a police officer?

No, as my signature suggests I am in the application process. My question arises from an occasion when I was out with an officer from my local force area, he was dealing with an incident involving an estranged partner or relative of some kind who had been turning up at a house and making threats including death threats. When I asked whether in that situation he would arrest the guy for making threats to kill he said as a rule we don't arrest for threats to kill, its a difficult offence and we find a way round it if possible... he didn't expand, I was just wondering if that was a common consensus or something unique to that particular area.

[ike-fungipoke]

lonestar, on Dec 7 2009, 11:45 AM, said:

No, as my signature suggests I am in the application process. My question arises from an occasion when I was out with an officer from my local force area, he was dealing with an incident involving an estranged partner or relative of some kind who had been turning up at a house and making threats including death threats. When I asked whether in that situation he would arrest the guy for making threats to kill he said as a rule we don't arrest for threats to kill, its a difficult offence and we find a way round it if possible... he didn't expand, I was just wondering if that was a common consensus or something unique to that particular area.

I cant comment on his reasons for saying that. If you arrest for one thing but after investigation find another offence fits better there's no problem charging with the other offence.

[philswan]

DTM, on Dec 6 2009, 09:39 PM, said:

This is now only one occasion and not two. I think its been this new format for about 2 years or near to 2 years in less my force have their own version on one occasion.

Philswan

Are you a police officer, community support or member of public?

obviously the answer will be different depending which you fall into

DTM....police officer
Thanks for everyones comments, I think I already knew the answer but was hoping for a 'fix' that I hadnt thought of I guess.
The 'victims' family are in genunine fear for their sons safety, whilst I think its misplaced fear, its genunine fear none the less.

I know who the cause is, and in light of witnesses likely not willing to give statements I wanted to DO something, and in the absence of evidence due to no witnesses willing to make statements then a harassment warning letter was the only course of action I could think off.

No one should have to put up with harassment, unfortunately when the harassment is done via a 3rd party it appears impossible to prove.

[Sectioned Detection]

Nobody has answered my previous question though:

"Are you saying that if I sent harrasing emails to the WRONG person the intended receipiant would still be the victim?"

If that's the case when I go home and tell the wife I've been threatened and SHE fears for me then would that amount to harassment. Also, does anyone have any case law regarding comments made to X who pass it onto Y being classed as harrasment. Sounds more like hearsay to me! Where would you draw the line? A tells B who tells C who mentions it to D who emails E who texts it to F and G overhears it in a bar?

[ike-fungipoke]

[quote name='Sectioned Detection' date='Dec 7 2009, 03:18 PM' post='419021']
Nobody has answered my previous question though:

"Are you saying that if I sent harrasing emails to the WRONG person the intended receipiant would still be the victim?"

If that's the case when I go home and tell the wife I've been threatened and SHE fears for me then would that amount to harassment. Also, does anyone have any case law regarding comments made to X who pass it onto Y being classed as harrasment. Sounds more like hearsay to me! Where would you draw the line? A tells B who tells C who mentions it to D who emails E who texts it to F and G overhears it in a bar?
[/


4Putting people in fear of violence
(1)A person whose course of conduct causes another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against him is guilty of an offence if he knows or ought to know that his course of conduct will cause the other so to fear on each of those occasions.
(2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it will cause another to fear that violence will be used against him on any occasion if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct would cause the other so to fear on that occasion.

[Sectioned Detection]

Is that a yes or a no?