The Misuse of the Harassment Act 1997 by Public Office Holders

As the saga around the unlawful coverup and corrupt investigation practices of West Midlands Police Senior Management team headed by their ACC Mike O'Hara, with the support of the West Midlands Fire Service against Benjamin Walker BA (Hons) FIFireE into the false allegation of Harassment made by the late Ex-CFO for West Midlands Wayne Brown and attempted coverup, the following learning is shared due to the unfolding conduct of Northamptonshire Police against Simon Tilley, based on allegations made by the ex-Chief officer et al and the links to this matter around course of conduct:

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was originally designed to protect individuals from harassment, including stalking and other forms of distressing behaviour.

However, public office holders are misusing the Act to stifle criticism and dissent. Here are some key points and findings from recent research/investigation learning and legal discussions:

Broad Application: The Act prohibits a "course of conduct" that amounts to harassment, which can include actions causing alarm or distress. This broad definition has been exploited by public office holders to target critics. This behaviour will get worse it seems, due to the uncovering of more corrupt leadership personalities in public office roles, and their conduct in 2025.

Case Law: There have been notable cases where the Act was applied in ways that raised concerns about its misuse. For example, the case of Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors highlighted how the Act could be used in employment contexts.

Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors & Ors (No 2) | [2013] EWCA Civ 149 | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Judgment | Law | CaseMine

If the allegations regarding Mr. Iqbal's integrity were true and the letters were sent to raise legitimate concerns about his suitability, the legal analysis might differ (this was found in the Brown allegation case) Where Benjamin Walker BA (Hons) FIFireE was raising legitimate concerns to the authority to investigate, in a professional and confidential manner (Full details from Ben himself -https://substack.com/@bomberos) , Gregg Brackenridge and another identified person(s) gave the letters to Brown, without considering the legitimacy (that is as the Grant Thornton UK LLP investigation found that Brown was not fit for office, however the narrative being presented is one of a shift in accountability away from those who enabled Brown to get away with his Fraud, as well as support of the Police in their unlawful conduct to "fit Ben up", however the CV Fraud to secure Browns tenure in public office was knowingly pushed through by Brackenridge, Sahota and those in West Midlands Fire Service HR, as the selection process involving Dan Quinn, and his experience of the selection process, evidences the Mens Rea very early on. Readers should note that in their investigation, Grant Thornton's auditor made no effort to speak to anyone who could provide evidence of this point. As seen taking place with the actions of some of the councillors and officials present at the secret meeting of 19/02/2024 to cover up Brown's Fraud key players from the recordings in press and defence possession - Police, PCC, council and Fire Service.

Brown's conduct and Fraud commenced with the backing of Brackenridge, Satinder Sahota and others on a senior level of West Midlands Police and Fire Service and their HR, and Ben's letters to the Fire Service and Fire Authority Lead highlighted a problematic issue, not only for Brown but also all involved that enabled his Fraud, creating the need to trump up allegations and fabricated evidence. Here are some key points to consider using the Iqbal case and Sunderland City Council v Conn in 2008 as context:

1. Legitimate Concerns vs. Harassment: If the letters were genuinely intended to raise valid concerns about Mr. Iqbal's professional conduct rather than to intimidate or coerce him, they might not be considered Harassment. The court would need to assess the intent behind the letters and whether they were part of a legitimate course of conduct.
2. Evidence of Misconduct: Evidence supporting the allegations against Mr. Iqbal would be crucial. If the allegations were substantiated, the letters could be a necessary and appropriate means of addressing professional concerns rather than a deliberate attack on his integrity.
3. Professional Standards: One would hope that the court also considers solicitors' professional standards and ethical obligations. Suppose the letters were in line with these standards and aimed at protecting the interests of clients or the legal profession (or a cherished organisation).
4. Course of Conduct: Even if the letters were sent with legitimate concerns, there would still be a need to evaluate whether the manner and frequency of the communication amounted to Harassment. The cumulative effect of the letters and the context in which they were sent would be essential factors—remember.
5. Balancing Interests: The court would balance the interests of protecting individuals from Harassment with the need to address legitimate professional concerns. This balance would be influenced by the specific facts and evidence presented in the case.

In summary, if the allegations against Mr. Iqbal as an example were true (as it turned out in the case of Brown) and the letters were sent to raise legitimate concerns, the court might view the situation differently. The key factors would be the intent behind the letters, the evidence supporting the allegations, and the overall context of the communication. In Ben's case, instead of reviewing the evidence and concerns raised by Ben, officers under senior officer stewardship and supervision set out to fabricate a case against Ben without looking at context and, as the evidence shows, worked with the West Midlands CPS, Fire Service and Authority to make sure the evidence fit Brown's allegation, instead of taking a non-biased and professional investigation approach to establish the truth by following the Criminal Procedure Investigation Rules - Little did they know how this would backfire on them.

Public Office Misconduct: The Committee on Standards in Public Life has discussed the challenges of defining "public office" and the ethical standards expected from public office holders. Misconduct in public office, including the misuse of legal provisions like the Harassment Act, remains a complex issue.

Research Findings: An evaluation of the Act's use and effectiveness found that it has been applied in various contexts, leading to concerns about overreach and misuse. The right to criticise and the determination of permissible expression in harassment cases have also been subjects of legal scrutiny (as unfolding in Ben's case, and one would hope in the Nicholas Adderley allegations against Simon Tilley).

Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors - attacking a person's integrity can amount to Harassment only if it were designed to pressure a person to stop representing a client, to advise a client or to agree to demands of the other party. This behaviour indicates that conduct was not professional communications/behaviour but intended to intimidate and coerce?an action for personal benefit to a person or organisation - this was the narrative it seems that West Midlands Police, West Midlands Fire Service and Crown Prosecution Service against Benjamin Walker BA (Hons) FIFireE

In a Public office holder context, as in any allegation of Harassment made by an accuser, in the following case "Sunderland City Council v Conn?in 2008, the Court of Appeal effectively raised the bar for what amounts to a course of conduct by explaining that "the touchstone for recognising what is not harassment ... will be whether the conduct is of such gravity as to justify the sanctions of the criminal law".

• The court held that for conduct to amount to Harassment under the Act, it must cross the line between regrettable and unacceptable in the criminal field. The court found that the second incident crossed this line, but the first incident did not, as it was merely a threat to property and not a physical threat.
• Outcome: The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the two incidents did not constitute a course of conduct amounting to Harassment. The court emphasised that a civil claim for Harassment is only available for conduct that amounts to a breach of the Act and constitutes a criminal offence.

These findings underscore the need to carefully apply the Protection from Harassment Act to ensure it serves its intended purpose without being misused to suppress legitimate criticism. In Ben's case, his conduct never met the threshold for bringing charges.

In Ben's harassment case post-charge, the following was established:

1: His original Solicitors were selling him out and not taking any action to challenge the charges or the Police and CPS conduct

2: Went along with the failure on Advanced disclosure and police process and procedure breaches, including refusal and then failure to turn over the crime investigation logs.

3: Failed to properly Listen, act and cooperate with advice given by Ben and others with knowledge of Police Processes and Procedures and how they were being breached to fit someone up (which was blatant from the evidence and charges brought, and taking into account the case stated thresholds and the accuser being a public office holder)

4: Failure to recognise that Brown had used Fire service resources to mount unlawful surveillance on Ben to try and find evidence.

5: Failure to hold the OIC accountable for the evidential breaches and breach in PACE and Criminal Procedure Investigation Act before charging and after charging

When it became clear to the then-defence barrister and the investigation team that there had been a full-on conspiracy to pervert with the support of the CPS charging lawyer and their attempts to frustrate, the then-defence barrister made this observation: "It's a street fight for justice now." This can be the only way when those charged with carrying out a fair investigation act in corrupt bias. Before having to shine a light and open up publicly, readers and lawyers looking at this should note that every effort was made to have the matters of criminal conduct uncovered investigated correctly by West Midlands Police, which was met with ignoring, gas lighting and refusal to take a crime reports.

Current concerns:

Ten months later, out of the blue, PC Khan, the officer in the case, via West Midlands CPS, presented evidence to the legal team that raised concerns about the circumstances around Brown's death. This item allegedly implicating Ben, the officer at the time of presentation, could not produce continuity of the item from the scene of Brown's suicide and stated that there were no forensic links to Brown when the defence requested analysis of the item, including other expert access, this request was refused by PC Khan claiming no longer to be the OIC and refusing details of the new one. What it does mean is that either the officer has planted evidence from their actions, if the item has no continuity and forensic links to the scene, and Brown or Brown's death was not a suicide. We are waiting to see if the Coroner's investigator or Coroner has been tainted by Political Corruption.

Independent CPS review:

Approaching the CPS in central London and flagging the evidenced issues around the Police investigation, the conduct of the reviewing and charging lawyer (the same), and their evidenced conduct that showed bias, the team secured an independent review, which was carried out by East Midlands CPS and handed back to West Midlands CPS to deal with.

Should the CPS go against this advice, issues will be raised legally for the CPS lawyer concerned.

A few years ago, if I had walked into court and accused the Police and CPS of colluding to bring charges and prosecute, the judge would have disbelieved me. However, the checks and balances that the CPS should bring are undermined by political corruption, as seen in this case and many others involving public office holders as both accusers and accused and the calibre and competency of the one's lawyers in their defence team.

Thankfully, Ben has very good ones who understand the issues and the need to challenge and hold corrupt officers and CPS lawyers accountable.

However, this is also the case for many others, as we have notably seen with the Post Office Scandal, Andrew Malkinson case, and a few others currently unfolding.

What comes next?

Justice for Ben and his family against the corrupt practices and those identified.