Lang v Crown Prosecution Service
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Treacy,Mr Justice Sweeney |
| Judgment Date | 07 December 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 3639 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/2436/2017 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 07 December 2017 |
[2017] EWHC 3639 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Treacy
Mr Justice Sweeney
CO/2436/2017
Mr L Webber (instructed by GT Stewart) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Mr B Douglas-Jones (instructed by the CPS Appeals and Reviews Unit) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
This is an appeal by way of Case Stated from the conviction of the appellant at the Bromley Magistrates' Court on 22 nd December 2016 of an offence of harassment involving his estranged wife. The allegation was that between 1 st January and 4 th August 2016 the appellant pursued a course of conduct amounting to harassment of Mrs Lang which he knew or ought to have known amounted to harassment, contrary to s.1(1) and s.2(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The form of harassment alleged was by text messages sent between 1 st and 5 th August 2016.
It has to be said that the Case before the court is in less than satisfactory form. There is a lack of precision in some of findings and the Case before the court is in a form which poses a different question for the opinion of this court from that originally lodged. No application has been made to amend the Case. The form of the amended question namely, “Were we entitled to convict the appellant on the evidence”, is vague and general and does not focus on what are said to be the real issues in the matter. Notwithstanding those defects, the parties have come prepared to deal with the Case in its amended form and I would be prepared to proceed on that basis, dispensing any formality as to amendment of the Case.
At paragraph of the Case the following facts are found:
(a) the appellant was married to Lorna Lang for approximately 13 years and they had been in a relationship for 22 years. They had two children together, a boy aged 11 and a girl aged 15.
(b) The parties separated in October 2015 but the marriage had broken down a few months before that. The children remained with Lorna Lang.
(c) Since October 2015 Lorna Lang's relationship with the appellant had become “very strange”. The appellant began texting a lot. The appellant was not able to have a conversation with Lorna Lang without “putting her down”. The messages became “nasty” and Lorna Lang became very scared. She felt as if she was being watched.
(d) Mrs Lang had formed a new relationship and the appellant did not react well to this. The appellant sent text messages to the children telling them to beware of Lorna Lang's new partner and telling them what Lorna Lang had done during their marriage. [In the absence of any finding to the contrary, I take it that those messages were sent in the period from 1 st August 2016.]
(e) The text messages which were the subject of the charge began on 1 st August 2016. The messages were sent by the appellant to Lorna Lang and downloaded by the police.
(f) Messages were also sent to people known both to Lorna Lang and the appellant
…
(i) Lorna Lang was a credible and compelling witness.
(j) the appellant accepted that he had sent the text messages.
The justices record that they were referred to the definition in harassment in R v N(Z) [2016] EWCA Crim 92, [2016] 2 Cr App R 10. They record in particular that:
“‘Harassment’ is generally understood to involve improper oppressive and unreasonable conduct that is targeted at an individual and calculated to produce the consequences described in s.7.”
The reference to s.7 is to s.7 of the 1997 Act.
Section 1(1) of that Act provides that:
“(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.”
It is clear that a course of conduct involves at least two separate occasions. See s.7(3)(a).
Section 7(2) provides:
“(2) References to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress.”
As is apparent, from the use of the word “include”, that definition is not exhaustive. The decision of the Court of Appeal in R v N(Z) helpfully considered earlier authorities and indicated that importing an additional requirement of oppression served as a yardstick which helped to draw a sensible line between the give and take of daily life and conduct justifying the sanctions of the criminal law.
Paragraph 6 of the Case is in the following terms:
“(a) the text messages were sent to a number of different people, including Lorna Lang, Maggie, Elaine, Uncle Terry and Kelly. [These were the complainant and her relations or associates].
(b) They were all personalised and had not been sent as part of a ‘group text’. They had not been sent in a moment of madness or drunkenness.
(c) In the context of the breakdown of the 20-year marriage, not all the messages would cause distress or alarm. However, the messages were sent over a number of days and contained offensive words such as ‘slapper’. This would be very distressing.
(d) Emotive language was used by the appellant in the text messages to the children such as, ‘Your mum cheated on dad with the boss from work’, and, ‘This guy is sleeping with your mum’. Again, this is very distressing.
(e) The appellant had made a deliberate attempt to undermine Laura Lang in her relationship with family, friends and workmates....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A Critical Analysis of the Law Commission's Proposed Cyberflashing Offence
...flaccid43. R v Curtis [2010] EWCA Crim 123 [29].44. Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust [2007] 1 AC 224, 225.45. Lang v CPS [2017] EWHC 3639 (Admin) [13]. In this case, the defendant sent his ex-wife numerous texts intending to under-mine her and her new relationship with another m......
-
A Critical Analysis of the Law Commission's Proposed Cyberflashing Offence
...flaccid43. R v Curtis [2010] EWCA Crim 123 [29].44. Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust [2007] 1 AC 224, 225.45. Lang v CPS [2017] EWHC 3639 (Admin) [13]. In this case, the defendant sent his ex-wife numerous texts intending to under-mine her and her new relationship with another m......