BULLIES AND THE LONG ARM OF THE LAW

Prior to the commencement of Protection of Harassment Act on 27 April 2013, bullies could escape the long arm of the law if their conduct fell just short of a criminal act. Bullies are now well within the reach of our courts. A bully as young as fourteen and possibly even younger can be the subject of a protection order and, if a bully continues to harass the victim, he/she may face criminal prosecution.

Kathleen Rice, Director in the Technology, Media and Telecommunications Practice at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr says that the Act, in its preamble, states that the rights of children are of paramount importance.

“Clearly, the drafters of the Act appreciated that, frequently, the victims of harassment are children. For this reason, the Act allows any child who is victim of harassment to apply to court for a protection order even in the absence of assistance from parent or guardian. A parent or guardian may also apply for a protection order on behalf of a child,” she explains.

Rice says that children, in addition to being the victims of bullying, are also often the perpetrators of bullying.

“In terms of the Act, an application for a protection order can be instituted against “any person” who has engaged in harassment. It is therefore possible to obtain a protection order against bully who is a child.

“A protection order will not be granted against any person, including a child, if the person did not know or cannot be expected to know that his/her conduct is causing harm. Whilst bullying itself may fall short of criminal conduct, the breach of a protection order that prohibits bullying behaviour is a criminal offence.

“Given that a protection order is enforced by the criminal courts, a court will be unlikely to grant a protection order against a child who is too young to face criminal charges,” she explains.

“In criminal proceedings,” notes Rice, “a child over the age of fourteen is presumed to have criminal capacity in that he/she will have the ability to appreciate the difference between right and wrong and to act in accordance with this appreciation. A court should have no difficulty granting a protection order against a child who is over the age of fourteen (who is capable of being criminally charged in the event of breach of the order) if the child knew or ought to have known that his/her bullying was harming another child

“A child under the age of ten is unlikely to fully appreciate that his/her conduct is harmful and application for an order against a child under the age of ten would be unlikely to succeed as a result. Even if an order were to be granted, it would be incapable of enforcement because a child under the age of ten has no criminal capacity and cannot be prosecuted for his/her failure to comply with the order,” she says.

Rice explains that a child between the ages of ten and fourteen is presumed not to have criminal capacity but this presumption can be rebutted. Whilst a court may be persuaded that the child is engaging harassment, it may nevertheless be reluctant to issue a protection order unless satisfied that the child has criminal capacity in that the child has sufficient maturity to know the difference between right and wrong

“On a practical level, any child against whom an order is sought must be assisted by his/her parents or guardian in the proceedings. The child also has the right to legal representation,” she notes. Rice says that the bully who breaches a protection order may be criminally charged.

“The Children’s Justice Act is applicable where a child is alleged to have committed an offence. The Children’s Justice Act requires the courts and prosecutors to treat a child in a manner that takes account of his/her age and emphasises the importance of a rehabilitation of child offenders. For this reason, as an alternative to prosecution, a prosecutor has the option to divert a criminal matter against a child away from the criminal courts and a possible criminal conviction. In order for a child to qualify for diversion, he/she must however acknowledge responsibility for the offence and agree (together with his/her parents or guardian) to the diversion which will be made an order of court,” she says.

“There are a number of diversion options that can be made an order of court, all of which are aimed at ensuring the child will not reoffend, will be rehabilitated and understand the impact of his/her behaviour. A court may, amongst others things, order that the child be referred to counselling or therapy, make an apology, or be placed under an order such as a good behaviour order, a family time order or a peer association order. If appropriate, a court may order that the child participate in a diversion programme and may, importantly, require that the parents of the child also participate so that they too can appreciate the reasons for, and the consequences of, their child’s behaviour and assist in their child’s rehabilitation,” she notes.

Rice explains that a diversion order is not a criminal conviction. A child that fails to comply with a diversion order however may then be prosecuted and, if found guilty, be sentenced.

“Each breach of a protection order constitutes a separate offence. A child that repeatedly breaches an order will be less likely to qualify for diversion and more likely to face criminal prosecution. There are a number of sentences that can be imposed if a child is convicted of a crime including restorative justice sentences and fines (which would be paid by the parents of the child). Conceivably, sentences involving correctional supervision or placement in a youth care centre can be imposed. These seem fairly unlikely for a breach of a court order, but they may become a consideration if the child repeatedly breaches an order or the consequences for the victim are particularly severe. A sentence of imprisonment will only be imposed if a child has a record of previous convictions and substantial and compelling reasons exist for imposing such a sentence,” she notes.

“The message of the new Protection from Harassment Act is clear, if you are the perpetrator of harassing behaviour, this Act aims to stop you; and if you are a victim, the Act aims to provide you with the tools you need to protect yourself from any further harm,” Rice adds.
Ends
For more information:
Kathleen Rice, Director, Technology, Media and Telecommunications practice, Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr,
Tel: +27 (0)11 562 1036, or email: kathleen.rice@dlacdh.com

Andrea Collocott, Head: Marketing, Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr,
Tel: +27 (0)11 562 128, mobile: 071 541 01001 or email: andrea.collocott@dlacdh.com

Angela Graham, Tel: 073 505 9012 yeahwrite@worldonline.co.za

Notes to editors:
Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr is one of the largest business law firms in South Africa with some 115 directors/partners and 200 qualified lawyers, located at offices in Johannesburg and Cape Town.
Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr lawyers specialise in services covering the complete spectrum of business legal needs in in our core practice areas. The firm also has dedicated sector-led teams consisting of lawyers with experience in a wide range of industries and the public sector.
We believe in partnerships. We make it our priority to get to know our clients so we can understand their business and management needs, then act accordingly. We have the depth of skills to respond to a client’s business operations locally and anywhere in the world through our alliance with DLA Piper.
Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr is the South African member firm of DLA Piper Group, an alliance of legal practices, which includes firms with offices around the globe that are affiliated to members of the DLA Piper Practice but are not themselves members of it. Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr’s Africa practice, in conjunction with DLA Piper Africa Group, is unrivalled in terms of pan-African legal services and geographical coverage.
DLA Piper is an international legal practice with over 3,500 lawyers located in 30 countries and 69 offices throughout Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the US.
The firm is considered one of the most transformed law firms in the country.
For the fourth year in a row, the firm took top honours in the DealMakers 2012 Awards for M&A deal flow. The firm advised on 98 M&A deals in 2012, which was 24.5% of market share. The firm was also ranked first for General Corporate Finance Deal Flow and Deal Value, having advised on 33 corporate finance transactions in 2012, with a combined deal value of R 39,424 billion. The firm was also first in Unlisted Deals Deal Flow.
Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr was also recently announced as South Africa’s No. 1 Large Law Firm for 2013 in the independent PMR Africa survey, a title the firm has held for seven years.

URL: http://www.cliffedekkerhofmeyr.com
Twitter: @DLACDH
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DLACDH
YouTube:

Author: Angela Graham from Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr. Originally distributed by MyPR.co.za.