Who needs protecting from whom?
Protecting freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental human right which must be lawfully upheld. The difficulty arises when differentiating between this and causing a public nuisance...After demonstrating at Dump-It's site and headquarters, Janet is being prosecuted for harassment, threatened with a civil injunction preventing her from using the footpath for the purpose of spying on, annoying and disturbing and being banned from trespassing on or obstructing any of the firm's premises. Dump-It are also seeking damages.Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, conduct which amounts to harassment is defined in section 1(1), as that:'(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and (b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.'A person is guilty of the offence of harassment if their conduct is in breach of section 1, and, under this section 'is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level five on the standard scale, or both.' Harassment is a criminal offence, and as set out in the Criminal Justice Act 1982 s.37 (2), level five on the standard scale refers to a fine not exceeding L5,000, although this may be sub
The final thing to consider is whether or not Dump-It were unlawful for seeking to drain the site with a view to tipping waste in it. " The objective is to place the claimant in the same position as if the wrong or breach had not been committed, and can be divided into either exemplary (amount exceeding compensation for mere loss/injury) or nominal (plaintiff not suffered substantial loss) damages. One other point that needs to be addressed when deciding whether or not an injunction could be taken out against Janet, is the burden of proof. Here, it was decided that criminal damage for painting the words 'toxic crime' on the chimney of Sheffield incinerator should be dropped. BNFL hindered helping the court, thus the court could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the company's activities were lawful, and so the case was dismissed. The claimant who owned the land where the horse was trained (and of which the highway crossed) argued trespass had been committed. Public nuisance is a misdemeanour at common law triable either way , and refers to any "inconvenience materially interfering with ordinary discomfort" . 'Lawful' is interpreted as; if a person/people 'engage in the activity on the land on that occasion without committing an offence or trespassing on the land'. More realistically, even if found guilty of harassment, where the fine would not exceed L5,000, aggravated trespass (as trespass alone is hard to prosecute against without an injunction being in place), where the fine would not exceed L2,500, and damages, the sum is going to be nowhere in this region. By allowing Dump-It to proceed with their business, the Council has not carried out its' duties proficiently, and so could be faced with a fine not exceeding L20,000 under summary conviction, or on conviction on indictment, to an unlimited fine. " Dump-It want to receive damages for 'disruption to their legitimate operations'.
Common topics in this essay:
DPP Jones,
Harassment Act,
EWCA Crim,
BNFL Greenpeace,
Highways Act,
Protection Act,
Courts Act,
Crested Newt,
Hickman Maisey,
,
aggravated trespass,
human rights,
amounts harassment,
public footpath,
fine exceeding,
standard scale,
section 1,
criminal offence,
summary conviction,
footpath purpose,
protection act 1990,
protection harassment act,
conduct amounts harassment,
harassment act 1997,
environmental protection act,
|
Acceptance Essays
