High Court
| Date | 01 February 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018318759984 |
| Published date | 01 February 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
Case Note
High Court
Insane Harassment: Is the Defence of
Insanity Available for a Defendant Charged
with an Offence of Harassment, Contrary to
Section 2(1) PFHA?
Aline Loake v Crown Prosecution Service [2017]
EWHC 2855 (Admin)
Keywords
Insanity, harassment, M’Naghten Rules,mens rea,actus reus
Loake was convicted of harassment contrary to s. 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PFHA)
in October 2015. The harassment consisted of a very large number of text messages sent to her husband
from whom she was separated. Section 2(1) of the PFHA defines harassment and the offence of
harassment in the following terms:
1. Prohibition of harassment
(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct—
(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other
(2) For the purposes of this section ...the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that
it amounts to...harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information
would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other
2. Offence of harassment
(1) A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1(1) ...is guilty of an offence.
The judge imposed a restraining order and a fine of £775. Loake appealed against the conviction and
sentence on grounds that she was not guilty of the offence of harassment by reason of insanity. Loake
intended to rely on psychiatric evidence. As a note, there was no suggestion that Loake was not fit to
plead or to stand trial. Prior to the evidence being heard, the court invited submissions from counsel on
the question whether the defence of insanity was available for such an offence.
The prosecution, relying on RvColohan [2001] EWCA Crim 1251 and Director of Public Prosecu-
tions vHarper [1997] 1 WLR 1406, submitted that the offence under s. 2(1) of the PFHA required no
proof of mens rea that could be negatived by a defence of insanity and that the assessment of whether the
appellant ought to have known that her actions amounted to harassment was wholly objective. The
prosecution contended that the defence was not available in answer to the charge (at [6]).
The Journal of Criminal Law
2018, Vol. 82(1) 7–10
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022018318759984
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial