Prison avoided in first ever sex based harassment case

Case study summary

We secured a community order for a client charged with the first ever for sex-based harassment offence under section 4B of the Public Order Act 1986. Represented by Alex Chowdhury, our client received a non-custodial sentence with the case receiving national media attention.

Case study

Our client faced a charge of intentional harassment, alarm or distress on account of sex following an incident on a train. The allegation concerned unwanted comments and behaviour towards a female passenger. This was a prosecution under section 4B of the Public Order Act 1986, and the case subsequently attracted significant media attention due to it being the first ever prosecution under the new law.

Before the first hearing, we reviewed the prosecution papers and exhibits and advised our client on the evidence, his options and the potential sentence. Following that advice, he accepted the allegation and pleaded guilty at his first appearance.

It was only through our discussions with the client that we suggested he be assessed by an independent psychiatric expert. He had never been assessed before, but we suspected that he may be neurodiverse but undiagnosed. We instructed an appropriate expert, who confirmed that he was on the Autistic Spectrum and this would have impacted on his behaviour. This had never previously been identified or diagnosed and so it played an important part in relation to the mitigating circumstances and our arguments as to why the court should not impose a prison sentence.

The sentencing hearing also dealt with a separate stalking offence to which our client had pleaded guilty. It was therefore important that the court considered his position across both matters. Alex Chowdhury represented him at the hearing and presented mitigation on his behalf after the court heard the prosecution’s account of each case.

The court imposed a 12-month community order, meaning that our client completely avoided any prison sentence, receiving an order that combined punishment with structured requirements in the community.

This was a significant result in a case involving a newly introduced offence and sentencing for two separate matters. Our work focused on clear advice from the outset, preparation for sentence and presenting our client’s mitigation to the court. Due to the media attention involved, it was also essential that we ensured that our client was not used as an example or a test case. Our preparation and submissions focussed on the fact that his punishment should accurately reflect the level of offending and his own personal circumstances when it came to sentencing.