When does online abuse become harassment?
If you are looking for online harassment solicitors, then our team is here to help. In this article, Zoe Harker Smith, a solicitor who deals with online harassment cases, looks at the legal issues that need to be considered.
In an age where disputes increasingly play out online, the distinction between unpleasant behaviour and unlawful harassment has become an important legal question. English law provides protection against sustained campaigns of intimidation and abuse, but the threshold is higher than many people assume.
What is harassment?
The starting point is the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The Act defines harassment as a course of conduct that amounts to harassment of another person and which the perpetrator knows, or ought to know, amounts to harassment. The courts have described harassment as a persistent and deliberate course of unreasonable and oppressive conduct directed at an individual, calculated to cause, and which does cause, alarm, fear or distress.
Can harassment be committed through words alone?
A common misconception is that harassment requires physical conduct. In reality, the Act expressly recognises that harassment may be constituted by speech. Emails, social media posts, direct messages, online commentary, and other forms of communication can therefore all potentially form part of a harassment claim.
However, cases involving speech raise complex issues because the courts must balance competing rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. On one side sits the claimant’s right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the ECHR. On the other is the defendant’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR.
This balancing exercise is particularly important because freedom of expression protects not only popular or agreeable speech but also speech that may offend, shock, or disturb. Consequently, offensive or unpleasant communications will not automatically amount to harassment.
What is the threshold for harassment?
The courts have repeatedly emphasised that harassment is not merely unattractive, unreasonable or discourteous behaviour. The conduct must cross a significantly higher threshold.
In Majrowski v Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Trust, the House of Lords confirmed that harassment must be of a seriousness capable of attracting criminal liability. This means that ordinary disputes, criticism, arguments, or even aggressive exchanges will not necessarily satisfy the legal test.
The point was illustrated in Miller v Turner [2023] EWHC 2799 (KB). In that case, the court found that trolling, bullying and aggressive behaviour, accompanied by what was described as a “whiff of” antisemitism, did not amount to harassment. The decision demonstrates the court’s reluctance to categorise objectionable speech as harassment where freedom of expression considerations remain significant.
When does a campaign becomes a “course of conduct”?
A single incident will rarely be enough to constitute harassment. The Act requires a “course of conduct”, generally involving at least two incidents. In practice, the greater the persistence, volume, and duration of the conduct, the easier it becomes to establish harassment.
Consider a campaign lasting more than a year and involving approximately 100 communications sent through multiple alias email addresses and across various social media platforms and websites. A court would be likely to regard such behaviour as a substantial and coordinated campaign rather than isolated incidents. The combination of frequency, persistence, and deliberate targeting would strongly support a finding that a qualifying course of conduct exists.
What defences to harassment are available?
Even where a course of conduct is established, the Act provides important statutory defences.
Under Section 1 (3) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, a defendant may avoid liability by showing that the conduct:
• was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime;
• was carried out under a statutory obligation or rule of law; or
• was reasonable in the particular circumstances.
The reasonableness defence is often the most contested. Whether conduct is reasonable depends heavily on the facts of each case, including the nature of the communications, the public interest involved, and the defendant’s freedom of expression rights.
How are damages for harassment assessed?
Where harassment is established, the court may award damages for distress, anxiety, and injury to feelings.
The modern approach to damages is heavily influenced by the privacy case of Gulati v MGN Ltd [2015] EWHC 1482 (Ch), the phone-hacking litigation against Mirror Group Newspapers. In that case, the court awarded damages for individual invasions of privacy while also taking account of the overall pattern of wrongdoing and the distress caused by the campaign as a whole.
Courts assessing injury to feelings have also looked to guidance developed in employment discrimination cases. In WXY v Gewanter [2012] EWHC 1601 (QB), the parties agreed that the framework established in Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police provided a useful benchmark.
The current Vento guidelines, revised for claims issued on or after 6 April 2024, provide the following bands:
Lower Band
£1,200 to £11,700
Applicable to less serious cases where the distress suffered is significant but limited in scope or duration.
Middle Band
£11,700 to £35,200
Reserved for serious cases that warrant substantial compensation but do not justify an award in the highest category.
Upper Band
£35,200 to £58,700
Used for the most serious cases involving significant and prolonged injury to feelings.
Exceptional Cases
Above £58,700
Only the most exceptional cases should exceed the upper band.
It should be noted that top-end awards are uncommon, and in the example given above of a targeted and prolonged campaign, the conduct may not attract an award above the middle Vento band, and potentially not above the lower Vento band.
How Slee Blackwell can help with your online harassment case
The law of harassment occupies a difficult space between protecting individuals from sustained abuse and safeguarding freedom of expression. The courts have consistently maintained a high threshold, recognising that robust, offensive and even deeply unpleasant speech may still fall within the protection of Article 10.
Nevertheless, where conduct develops into a prolonged and targeted campaign, particularly one involving repeated communications across multiple platforms over an extended period, the balance may shift decisively in favour of the victim. In such circumstances, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 provides a powerful remedy, with potentially substantial damages available where significant distress and injury to feelings can be demonstrated.
Our online harassment solicitors offer a free initial consultation. We will review your case and set out your legal options.
One popular option is our fixed fee ‘Cease and Desist Letter’, which starts at £750 plus VAT.
Contact us today
Contact a member of our team of SRA regulated solicitors for a free review of your case and a fixed-fee quote.
Call 0333 888 0404 or email [email protected]
