Harassment

The Interpretation Act 1978 provided that, unless a contrary intention was shown, the word “person” included a body corporate or incorporate. Section 7(5) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 clearly constituted a contrary intention. Consequently, s 7(5) of the 1997 Act only applied to a victim and not to the perpetrator of the act because the words “references to a person, in the context of harassment of the person” were references to a person who was an individual. Section 7(5) of the 1997 Act only changed the rule of the 1978 Act as it applied to “harassment of a person”. That meant a victim.

The provision specifically did not apply to a perpetrator, with the result that the presumption in the 1978 Act still applied, and that had not been ousted. Had Parliament contended that only individuals could be liable as perpetrators, then s 7(5) of the 1997 Act would have been clearly drafted to that effect. Further, had Parliament intended that bodies corporate could not be victims but