"The defendant clearly considers that he is above the law; that he does not need to comply with orders of the court. He even appears to enjoy his defiance. It is my duty to make clear that he is mistaken and to reassert the authority of the law" 

These were the words were part of the judgment of Mr Justice Nicklin as he imposed a 16-month prison sentence on a litigant who had carried out a campaign of harassment against a judge through a website page. 

The decision was made following the persistent breaching of a court order by the litigant that sought to curb the publication of further material on the website page. 

We have seen a number of recent instructions from NHS bodies and social housing organisations where their employees have been subject to sustained online attacks. Often swift, sensitive but firm engagement with the author can be effective in addressing such attacks. However, there are cases where such online attacks continue and can have a very serious impact on the victim. 

In addition to, or in the absence of, action by the police, there are number of legal options available if employees become victims of this sort of conduct. These options include a defamation claim and applying for civil injunctions, including under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. If your organisation needs support in this area, please do not hesitate to get in touch.  

Mr Justice Nicklin stated the following in his judgment - a reminder that just because an individual works in a public role, it does not mean the law is not there to protect them from online abuse: 

"All judges have to expect public scrutiny of their work and potential criticism. But a judge is also a citizen, who is equally entitled to the protection of the law as any other citizen.

‘When the actions of an individual passes from robust criticism to, in this case, menacing threats and abuse that are quite clearly illegal, the citizen is entitled to the protection of the law’ 

https://www.bailii.org/ew/case...