Yorkshire Client Not Guilty of Harassment

Case study summary

Our client had been accused of harassment by a local farmer. Through careful consideration of the evidence, we identified investigatory failings and inconsistencies between the prosecution witnesses. At trial, he was found not guilty and was able to maintain his good character.

Case study

Our client was a man of good character who was facing a charge of harassment without violence. The allegations came after a number of interactions with a local farmer. With his professional and personal reputation at stake, he contacted our lawyers to represent him.

After reviewing the prosecution case, and taking comprehensive instructions from our client, it became clear that the evidence did not match up. As our client was charged contrary to s.2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, there needed to be an intent to cause alarm or distress. In this case, our client was parking at an office block before jogging down a public bridal way. The local farmer who owned this land, confronted our client and used glue to stick signs on his car. While the farmer told the prosecution that he and his wife were fearful of what our client might do, the evidence told a very different story.

Through further analysis, we realised that the police had failed to recover crucial CCTV which would have supported our client's account. The farmer denied having such equipment but our own expert was able to give evidence to the fact that the CCTV had not long been removed. It was apparent to us that this farmer took every step possible to obstruct our client's defence.

To ensure the right result was achieved, we instructed a specialist barrister who was able to present our client's case in court. She not only highlighted the lack of intent in this case but also the obstruction and failings by the farmer and the police. As a result, our client was rightfully acquitted and the court ordered that he could reclaim the costs of his legal representation.