- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Constanza (1997)
I. Case Summary:
I. Case Summary:
- Facts: D stalked V for ~2 years: following her, silent calls, 800+ letters, driving past her house, writing on her door. V developed clinical depression/anxiety due to D's actions, fearing a potential attack.
- Initial Charge: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s47 OAPA 1861).
- D's Appeal: Argued no assault because V didn't apprehend immediate force.
- Held: Prosecution only needs to prove D caused fear of violence at some point (immediate or near future). D's proximity to V and the cumulative effect of his actions created a sufficient fear of immediate violence.
- Apprehension of Violence: The victim's fear of violence needs to be established.
- Immediacy: "Immediate" does not necessarily mean instantaneous. Fear of violence "at some time, either immediately or in the near future" is sufficient.
- Context Matters: The surrounding circumstances (e.g., D's proximity, the pattern of behavior) are crucial in determining whether a reasonable fear of immediate violence exists.
- Pre-Harassment Legislation: This case, along with Ireland; Burstow, highlights the use of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s47 OAPA 1861) to address stalking behavior before specific harassment laws existed.
- Introduction of Harassment Offence: The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 created a new offence of harassment.
- Section 4 Definition: Harassment is causing "another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against him."
- Impact: Had Constanza been prosecuted after the 1997 Act, the prosecution wouldn't have needed to prove an assault, simplifying the legal process. The focus shifts to proving a course of conduct causing fear of violence on at least two occasions.
0 Comments