header-logo header-logo

A high hurdle

07 September 2012 / Michael Salter , Chris Bryden
Issue: 7528 / Categories: Features , Defamation
printer mail-detail
rbs1_08_4

Protecting privacy under PHA 1997 can be a tough task, note Chris Bryden & Michael Salter

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA 1997) is a versatile and wide-ranging statute that has come the full circle since its amendment by the coming into force of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PFA 2012). PHA 1997 was originally envisaged as an Act to prevent stalking and to punish stalkers. However, as the authors have previously discussed, by omitting reference specifically to “stalking” and instead focusing on a much broader offence of harassment (undefined, but “includes causing alarm or distress”) PHA 1997 is of much wider application. However, following lengthy Parliamentary consultation (which the authors were privileged to have been involved in) PFA 2012 (which received Royal Assent on 1 May 2012) introduced two new offences specifically of stalking. PHA 1997 remains one of the most flexible pieces of legislation of recent years.

Not always a remedy

However, PHA 1997, while able to be utilised in various circumstances, will not always provide

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll