Haque v R

Haque v R

The court was bound by Curtis and Widdows to hold that a prosecution under section 4 requires proof that the course of conduct amounted to harassment, including the requirements identified in Thomas. However, on the facts, the jury must have been sure the conduct was targeted, intended to alarm or distress, and was oppressive. The summing-up was fair and balanced. There was no basis to admit fresh evidence or to find the conviction unsafe.

Parties
Appellant: Mohammed Enamul Haque; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld; applications for leave to appeal on other grounds refused.
Legal Topics
Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Putting a Person in Fear of Violence, Harassment, Appeal Against Conviction, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Protection From Harassment Act 1997 Putting a Person in Fear of Violence Harassment Appeal Against Conviction Jury Directions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Enamul Haque

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a prosecution under section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 requires proof that the course of conduct amounted to harassment as defined in section 1 and interpreted by case law
  2. 2 Whether the jury was properly directed on the elements of the offence and the statutory defence
  3. 3 Whether the summing-up was unbalanced or unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The court was bound by Curtis and Widdows to hold that a prosecution under section 4 requires proof that the course of conduct amounted to harassment, including the requirements identified in Thomas. However, on the facts, the jury must have been sure the conduct was targeted, intended to alarm or distress, and was oppressive. The summing-up was fair and balanced. There was no basis to admit fresh evidence or to find the conviction unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld; applications for leave to appeal on other grounds refused.