Civil Injunction vs Criminal Offence Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 provides both a civil injunction (s.3) and a criminal offence (s.2 and s.4). This comparison explains when to use the civil route and when the criminal route is more appropriate.
Overview
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA 1997) was enacted primarily to address stalking, but it has wide application to any course of conduct that amounts to harassment. The Act creates both civil and criminal remedies. Section 2 creates a criminal offence of harassment (summary, up to 6 months' custody); s.4 creates the more serious offence of putting a person in fear of violence (either-way, up to 10 years' custody). Section 3 gives the civil courts jurisdiction to grant injunctions to prevent harassment and award damages. The two regimes can operate simultaneously: a victim can pursue a civil injunction while also supporting a criminal prosecution. Understanding the differences in burden of proof, control over proceedings, and remedies helps victims choose the most effective route.
Side-by-Side Comparison
Civil Injunction (PHA 1997 s.3)
Pros
- Claimant controls the proceedings — victim brings the claim and can specify the terms of the injunction
- Lower standard of proof — civil standard (balance of probabilities), not criminal standard
- Can obtain without-notice interim injunction for urgent protection within days
- Can claim damages for anxiety, financial loss, and distress caused by the harassment
Cons
- Claimant bears the costs of proceedings — legal fees and court fees
- Must prove a 'course of conduct' (at least two incidents) — a single incident is not harassment under the PHA
- Enforcement requires the claimant to report breach and apply to court for committal — the criminal courts are not automatically involved
- Legal aid is available only in limited circumstances — claimant may face significant costs
Best For
Cases where the victim wants direct control over proceedings, wants to specify precise injunction terms, and wants damages for the harm caused — particularly harassment by neighbours, ex-partners (where non-molestation order is not available), or online harassers.
Criminal Prosecution (PHA 1997 ss.2 and 4)
Pros
- Free — the Crown (CPS) prosecutes; victim does not pay costs
- Higher penalties — up to 10 years' imprisonment for s.4 offences
- Criminal investigation and CPS resources — police gather evidence; victim does not have to build the case
- Restraining order can be made on conviction (or acquittal) under s.5/5A — protecting the victim
Cons
- Victim does not control proceedings — CPS decides whether to prosecute; victim is a witness
- Higher standard of proof — beyond reasonable doubt
- Police may not prioritise or investigate adequately — particularly for lower-level harassment
- No damages — criminal proceedings do not compensate the victim directly (separate civil claim needed)
Best For
Serious harassment, stalking, threats of violence, or harassment involving a course of conduct that the police are willing to investigate and the CPS is willing to prosecute — particularly where the victim wants the protection of a restraining order.
Key Differences
Our Recommendation
For immediate protection, apply urgently to the County Court for a without-notice injunction under PHA 1997 s.3 — this can be obtained within days without the delay of a police investigation. Simultaneously, report the conduct to the police so a criminal investigation can begin. Both routes are available concurrently. If the harassment is serious (threats, physical stalking, fear of violence), prioritise the criminal route — the CPS has resources you do not, and a restraining order on conviction provides powerful protection. For low-level but persistent harassment where the police will not act, the civil route may be your only realistic option.