Injunction advice

HampshireH

So are you both now holidaying separately but in the same place?

unholyangel

Comms69 wrote: »

You might have the advice, but you aren't listening.

A prosecution under section 2 or 4 (of the PHA) requires proof of harassment. In addition, there must be evidence to prove the conduct was targeted at an individual, was calculated to alarm or cause him/her distress, and was oppressive and unreasonable.

The elements of section 2 offence are:

a course of conduct;
which amounts to harassment of another; and
which the defendant knows, or ought to know amounts to harassment of another.

Its not nearly as cut and dried as you seem to think it is.

If he is carrying out criminal activity as OP has stated, he'd have to be awfully stupid to risk that being broached in a court by filing a harassment complaint when his complaint would be her threatening to report his criminal activity.

belfastgirl23

Admittedly I’ve only skimmed this but I’d say use the holiday to draw a line under the whole sorry mess. Once it’s over you have no need to concern yourself with anything to do with him again. I suspect if you leave well enough alone it will all die a natural death. The police are unlikely to bother following up on the report (or to be safe you can withdraw it) and if you leave well enough alone then at least if anyone comes after you, you can say you had a good think on holiday and you won’t be in touch with him any more. Remember you can’t control what he does, only what you do. So start being the grown up and thinking about you and what you want, not about him and what he’s doing.

And hope you enjoy the holiday!

[Deleted User]

Enjoy the holiday. Take strength from the fact you really don't need him, you don't need to know what he's up to because he is on a fool's ride. You aren't as long as you don't go with him. Decide what you want to do and breath easy because its not the same journey as him (you do know what will ultimately happen, don't you)?

Comms69

unholyangel wrote: »

A prosecution under section 2 or 4 (of the PHA) requires proof of harassment. - proof can be a statement. In addition, there must be evidence to prove the conduct was targeted at an individual, was calculated to alarm or cause him/her distress, and was oppressive and unreasonable. - that's a strange interpretation.

The elements of section 2 offence are:

a course of conduct; - ie more than one instance
which amounts to harassment of another; - ie a statement from the victim saying so and
which the defendant knows, or ought to know amounts to harassment of another. - being blocked generally indicated that the victim doesn't want further contact

Its not nearly as cut and dried as you seem to think it is. - excuse me, it's actually much simpler than what I've suggested

If he is carrying out criminal activity as OP has stated - yes but that could be smoking weed for all we know , he'd have to be awfully stupid to risk that being broached in a court - why? Have you been to a mag's court recently, no-one is going to be there by filing a harassment complaint when his complaint would be her threatening to report his criminal activity.

Except that isn't the complaint. The harassment is the on-going unwanted contact.

unholyangel

Comms69 wrote: »

Except that isn't the complaint. The harassment is the on-going unwanted contact.

If you think thats a strange interpretation then you should tell the Crown Prosecution Service so - as it was copied and pasted directly from them Although I did add the part in brackets so you would know which law it was referencing.

But he can hardly argue the communications were unwanted when the OP has messages from him requesting that she contacts him.

As I said, not as cut & dried as you seem to think it is.

There are other issues too that would affect it but thats the biggest one. Which is why if you are ever suffering harassment or stalking and have been trying to "reason" with them, the police will tell you to stop interacting with them. It needs to be one sided. You don't get to say your bit and then try claim harassment when they try to say theirs.

Comms69

unholyangel wrote: »

If you think thats a strange interpretation then you should tell the Crown Prosecution Service so - as it was copied and pasted directly from them Although I did add the part in brackets so you would know which law it was referencing. - will do, can you include the link so I can feedback to them.

But he can hardly argue the communications were unwanted when the OP has messages from him requesting that she contacts him. - perhaps, but given the OP works in finance, and iirc has to declare any time she is investigated, that was my actual point.

As I said, not as cut & dried as you seem to think it is. - agree to disagree

There are other issues too that would affect it but thats the biggest one. Which is why if you are ever suffering harassment or stalking and have been trying to "reason" with them, the police will tell you to stop interacting with them. It needs to be one sided. - the police will tell you, usually to tell them you do not wish to be contacted, so as to satisfy the last condition. You don't get to say your bit and then try claim harassment when they try to say theirs.

For the OP the issue isn't a prosecution, but telling her employer that she's under investigation.

unholyangel

Comms69 wrote: »

For the OP the issue isn't a prosecution, but telling her employer that she's under investigation.

Whether she needs to tell her employer depends on her contract of employment. But even if she's required to tell them at a certain stage before, it shouldn't actually impact her job unless she's found guilty.

And here is the CPS link for your perusal. The section I quoted is under the bit titled harassment and is the 4th paragraph down.

Comms69

unholyangel wrote: »

Whether she needs to tell her employer depends on her contract of employment. But even if she's required to tell them at a certain stage before, it shouldn't actually impact her job unless she's found guilty.

And here is the CPS link for your perusal. The section I quoted is under the bit titled harassment and is the 4th paragraph down.

Because im sure the OP wants to tell her employer she's being investigated for harassment...

CBABBS

"It needs to be one sided. You don't get to say your bit and then try claim harassment when they try to say theirs."

Thank you unholy angel, well said :T . This was my point. The blocking was clearly to prevent me from saying my bit, not because he didn't want to be contacted hence why he would unblock me too, to say more of his bits. Hence I am fairly confident he wouldn't have a harassment case.