Civil vs Criminal court for Harassment

[deeepeee]

I understand the fundamental difference between civil and criminal cases in terms of the 'burden of proof', i.e. beyond reasonable doubt vs balance of probabilities.

What I am curious about is how an offence that can be heard in different courts would differ in outcome?

Using harassment for example, which can be heard in both the civil and criminal courts, how would the case differ in relation to the burden of proof, or other matters?

In a criminal case, the 'reasonable person test' dictates whether the 'offence' is first made out. i.e. would a reasonable person, with all the facts believe it was harassment.

I assume then the same test is used in the civil case to first determine if there is a claim, afterall, harassment is harassment whether civil or criminal?

So my question is;

In this example in different courts, what Is the burden of proof to determine;
1. if the claimant was harassed?
2. if the defendant has committed harassment?
3. if intent was that of harassment?
4. something else?

[lgfa92]

s3 of the PfH Act 1997, dealing with civil remedies, requires that s1(1) be satisfied - this is exactly the same points that have to be considered for criminal cases under s2.

The burden of proof is the same, that of the wronged party to prove, the standard of proof is however different.

The main reason is that, in the first instance, a criminal conviction for harassment can result in immediate imprisonment. In a civil case the first instance would result in an order to prevent further harassment and/or damages - imprisonment cannot be considered. It is mainly for this reason, potential imprisonment, that the standard of proof is different in criminal cases.

If a person later breaches a civil order in respect of harassment then they can face imprisonment but this is then considered using the criminal standard of proof due to the potential outcome.