Proposals to tackle sexual harassment in the street in England and Wales do not go far enough because the bar for offences has been set too high, charities have warned.
The Fawcett Society, Girl Guiding and Refuge are among organisations who say the requirement to prove perpetrators intended to cause alarm or distress undermines the provisions of two bills intended to protect women and girls going through parliament.
Signatories, who also include UN Women UK, Barnardo’s, Suzy Lamplugh Trust and White Ribbon UK have written an open letter, published on the Plan International UK website on Friday to coincide with a House of Lords debate on the protection from sex-based harassment in public bill.
They write: “We believe that some of the work undertaken by government to make life safer for women and girls is being undermined by the demands set for them. In practice, the burden on victims to prove intent leaves the door open for the perpetrators to say: ‘I only meant it as a joke.’
“As charities advocating and working with women and girls, we believe the actual harm suffered by victims, rather than the intent of perpetrators, should be at the heart of legislation.”
The sex-based public harassment bill is a victory for campaigners who have lobbied for a change in the law for years. But they are concerned that men will be able to claim they did not have any intent to cause offence.
As the bill stands, victims would have to prove that the behaviour complained of was “intentional” and aiming to cause “harassment, alarm or distress”.
Kathleen Spencer Chapman, head of policy, advocacy and research at Plan International UK, and Gemma Tutton, co-founder of Our Streets Now, said: “It is encouraging to see all sides of the house – and the government – continue to support this bill. However, the bill places a burden on victims of public sexual harassment to evidence intent by having to prove that the perpetrator intended to cause ‘distress or alarm’. This cannot be right.”
Similarly, the online safety bill criminalises cyberflashing, another form of public sexual harassment, but only when the intention is either “sexual gratification” or to cause “alarm, distress or humiliation”.
The open letter also expresses concern that the government is rowing back support for the worker protection (amendment of equality act 2010) bill, which would strengthen workplace sexual harassment laws.
A government spokesperson said it was committed to supporting women and girls to feel safer both on streets and online, adding: “We disagree with the notion that there will be a burden on victims to ‘prove’ the perpetrator’s intention in cases of public sexual harassment. As in any prosecution, the defendant’s guilt must be proven by the crown, including mental elements such as intent.”
