Analysis of Joe's Stalking Case under Protection from Harassment Act

This case study examines a scenario where Joe is accused of stalking Olga, analyzing his actions in relation to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The analysis focuses on the elements of Actus Reus (the criminal act) and Mens Rea (the guilty mind) to determine Joe's criminal responsibility. The document highlights Joe's persistent pursuit of Olga, including sending numerous text messages and lurking near her residence. It references legal precedents like R v Hancock and Shankland and R v Nedrick to establish the intent and foresight required for a conviction. The study concludes that Joe's behavior constitutes harassment, violating Section 2 (A) (2) of the Act, and his actions caused significant distress to Olga. The analysis includes relevant legal definitions and case law to support its conclusions, demonstrating Joe's culpability in both his actions and intentions.

Answers
1. Joe has been pursuing Olga for a long time since he broke up with her on November 2014.
He seems to be desperately following her wherever she goes as well as at her residence. He is
in clear violation of Section (1) of F1 4A of Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which is
about Stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress ("Protection from
Harassment Act 1997", n.d.). According to this provision, any person whose conduct –
a) Amounts to stalking; and
b) Either –
i. Makes another person to fear that a violence could be used against his/her
ii. Causes a serious distress to that person that can have profound adverse effects
on the person’s daily activities.
So, Joe will be guilty of violating the above Act, if he knew or ought to have known that his
course of conduct would make Olga fear on all those occasions and, therefore, cause alarm or
distress to her.
2. The Actus Reus in this case is the element of criminal responsibility. For the purpose of this
Act, it will include the willful bodily movement on the part of Joe. Its requirement will be
satisfied by some particular elements – conduct, result, a state of affairs or omission.
The conduct itself can be a reflective of criminal offence. For an instance, if someone lies
under an oath represents an Actus Reus of perjury, no matter whether that lie is believed or
had any impact on the outcome (Simons, 2002).
As Joe had a duty to act but he failed to discharge it because he stalked Olga again and again
knowing fully that it may cause her distress. Moreover, the proof of Actus Reus is the video
footage recorded in CCTV cameras.
3. The two principles of Mens Rea in this case that will need to be proved for declaring criminal
responsibility are – guilty mind or wrongful purpose or criminal intent and willfulness in
terms of physical element.
4. The Mens Rea is the fundamental principle of criminal law. It refers to a person’s awareness
regarding the fact that his or her conduct is criminal. Sometimes, in Strict Liability statutes,
the criminal liability for commission and omission is declared without designating Mens Rea
(Perkins, 1939). However, in this case, there are a number of instances when Joe reflected the
criminal intent or guilty mind. He sent 600 text messages to Olga in 2015 alone after their
break up. The video footage clearly showing him lurking in the back of Olga’s house. The
question is what were his intentions when he was there in the premise of her residence? So, it
is not difficult to conclude that his intentions were certainly not noble.

5. In a case concerning R v Hancock and Shankland [1986] 2 WLR 257 and R v Nedrick (1986)
83 Cr App 267, as per the conclusions in these cases of mens rea, the explanation of foresight
of consequences were appropriate and relevant to all offences not only murder (Bone, &
Rutherford, 1986). So, in light of these cases, the Court observed:
i. A consequence will be intended when it is the purpose of the accused;
ii. It can be inferred by the Court or the jury that a consequence is intended, whenever –
the consequence is because of the result of an act, and the accused knows it is a
certain consequence.
6. The two key terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea, when used together, they both make a
compelling statement that “any act of a person does not make him guilty unless his mind is
also guilty”. So, it is quite but natural that a person is guilty if in case he is proved to be
culpable or blameworthy in both thoughts as well as action.
So, in the present case, the conduct of Joe as well as his intentions clearly point out that he
was grossly involved in the wrongful act of harassment. His behavior in different occasions
was nowhere near to that of a sensible person. There was no place where he did not stalk
Olga. Also, he did not even care about his timing of doing the act, especially, once when he
walked past her in the very early hours in the morning. So, all of these activities on his part
culminated into a devastating effect upon Olga.
Therefore, without any doubt Joe is guilty of Section 2 (A) (2) of the act of harassment.

References
Bone, S. J., & Rutherford, L. A. (1986). Murder under Duress-Awaiting the Final Word. J. Crim.
L., 50, 257.
Perkins, R. (1939). A Rationale of Mens Rea. Harvard Law Review, 52(6), 905.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1334184
Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Legislation.gov.uk. Retrieved 22 October 2016, from
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/section/4A?view=plain
Simons, K. (2002). Does Punishment for “Culpable Indifference” Simply Punish for “Bad
Character”? Examining the Requisite Connection Between Mens Rea and Actus
Reus. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 6(1), 219-315.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2002.6.1.219