Harassment defendant must have acted "rationally" to use defence
A person accused of harassment must act “rationally” if they are to use the defence that they were “preventing or detecting a crime”.
Michael Willoughby, an employee of Timothy Hayes until they fell out, relied on the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, s 1(3)(a) defence in Hayes v Willoughby [2013] UKSC 17.
He had accused Hayes of fraud, embezzlement and tax evasion, and sent letters to the official receiver, the police and the Department of Trade and Industry, which investigated and found nothing. Willoughby continued his campaign and made some intrusions into Hayes’s private life.
The trial judge found in Willoughby’s favour since he genuinely believed his allegations. However, the Court of Appeal rejected this on the basis Willoughby’s conduct was not “reasonably or rationally connected” to the prevention of crime.
The Supreme Court dismissed Willoughby’s appeal 4-1. Lord Sumption, giving the lead judgment, said the test of reasonableness did not fit the defence, and the correct test was that of “rationality”. He said Willoughby’s behaviour was irrational.
.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=9a8f1ea9_1)
