Magistrates Sentencing for Harassment

This is a commentary regarding the Sentence imposed for an offence of Harassment at a Magistrates Court.

Case Summary:

· The victim informed the writer that he had reported an offence of Blackmail.

· The document provided for this commentary was the Sentencing Entry in the Magistrates Court.

· The 'accused' pleaded Not Guilty to the offence of Harassment.

· The Magistrates’ Court found the 'accused’ to be Guilty of Harassment.

· The Sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was a Community Order and a Restraining Order not to contact in anyway or via a third party the victim or his partner.

Background:

The circumstances that the Magistrates’ Court considered when imposing the sentence:

The 'accused’ had also breached a suspended custodial order. The reason given by the Magistrates’ Court for not taking action regarding the suspended sentence breach was:

“Guilty Plea taken into account.

Suspended sentence not activated: 

1) Suspended sentence would be punitive only.

2) The sentence imposed has a rehabilitative effect which would be beneficial to prevent further re-offending and address the issues identified by probation service.

3) Magistrates who convicted the defendant after trial ordered PSA be made aware of the breach, indicated a High Community based Penalty would be appropriate level of sentence to meet the gravity of the offending and the breach.”

Concern raised:

The original offence that the victim reported was Blackmail and that the police down-crimed the offence to Harassment. In addition to being concerned of how the Magistrates’ dealt with the breach of the suspended sentence imposed from an earlier occasion.

Commentary:

In taking an objective approach, there are factors that can affect how the police record a crime. Some of those factors are:

· Third-party pressures from sources other than the person who reports an incident and the police officers who deal with that report.

· There are a variety of such third-party pressures that have a systematic influence on recorded crime statistics, including moral pressure, insurers’ requirements, performance targets, and recording standards.

· Previous research carried out in this particular area has found that there are three strategies of adjustment that can be identified:

1. Not-crimeing – a decision from the investigating officers not to treat the incident as a crime.

2. Down-crimeing – treating the incident as a summary or regulatory offence.

3. No-crimeing – a subsequent decision to de-classify the incident.

CPS decision to charge:

In deciding the offence to be charged, the CPS would consider whether there is evidence to prove each legal element of the offence. For example, an offence of Blackmail requires the following to be proven:

“Section 21 of the Theft Act 1958 creates the offence of blackmail. The offence is committed when a person with a view to gain for themselves or another or intending to cause loss to another makes an unwarranted demand with menaces. Dishonesty is not an element of the offence.”

An offence of Harassment requires the following to be proven:

In accordance with the Protection of Harassment Act 1997:

“the elements of harassment are:

· a course of conduct;

· which amounts to harassment of another; and

· which the defendant knows, or ought to know amounts to harassment of another.”