The Courts in Rahman and Bukhari addressed jurisdictional issues that may occur where harassment campaigns cross national boundaries.
Rahman v Ary
In Rahman v Ary Network Ltd [2016], Sir David Eady considered this issue. The claimant, a prominent Pakistani media executive, was subjected to a relentless year-long campaign of abuse broadcast by the defendants’ UK television channels. Over 100 programmes portrayed him as a traitor who had conspired with foreign intelligence agencies against Pakistan.
The case succeeded in libel but failed in harassment. Eady J accepted the campaign was “persistent and unrelenting” and that the references to jihad and fatwa were plainly, “oppressive, unreasonable and unacceptable”. Yet the claim failed on jurisdictional grounds. It was held that harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act (PfHA) 1997 requires more than acts committed within England and Wales: the victim must also experience harassing effects here. As Eady J explained, “One can be libelled without knowing about it at the time, but not so with harassment. It makes no sense to say that a person was harassed but knew nothing about it.” This means that the idea that someone was harassed without their knowledge is illogical.
Bukhari v Bukhari
This issue was revisited in the context of social media in Bukhari v Bukhari [2025]. Approximately 249 tweets were published by the claimant’s cousin in a little over six months, accusing the claimant of serious allegations of corruption, theft, and fraud.
Judge Eardley confirmed the Rahman approach remains good law: “a claim in harassment is not made out unless the harassing effects of the defendant’s course of conduct are experienced by the claimant in England and Wales.” However, he refined its application in important ways recognising that digital communication dissolves neat territorial boundaries.
Judge Eardley held that there was no requirement that the victim experience the harassment exclusively in England and Wales. “Experiencing the effects of the course of conduct while in England and Wales will suffice even if they were also experienced elsewhere at other times. The claimant’s temporary presence and distress in England were enough to anchor jurisdiction. The Judge took the view that “being harassed” will be completed if the effects of the conduct are felt to a more than minimal extent while in this jurisdiction. When assessing this, the Court took into account that the tweets “did not come out of the blue but were a continuation of the conduct that was already affecting the Claimant abroad.” Ultimately, the Judge was satisfied that the claimant endured harassment to a sufficient degree as the tweets posted while in England and Wales exacerbated the harassment he was already experiencing elsewhere.
Implications
The difference between the two cases is subtle but significant. Bukhari did not overrule Rahman; it modernised it. Both accept that harassment is territorially limited by the victim’s experience, not merely the defendant’s actions. Yet Bukhari shows that “impact of harassment within England” can be intermittent and still sufficient; a recognition that online abuse is borderless but still justiciable where its sting is felt.
Consequently, these cases exemplify that physical presence, not necessarily exclusive presence, within the UK during the period of the conduct can be sufficient in a harassment claim, especially when addressing jurisdictional questions.
Contact Us
If you are facing harassment, Nath Solicitors is here to support you. With over 30 years of expertise, we specialise in providing swift, expert resolution to distressing situations. Our experienced team of solicitors has a meticulous eye for detail, ensuring that every aspect of your case is thoroughly examined and presented.
Contact our highly experienced team at Nath Solicitors today to discuss your case and explore your options. Call us on 020 3983 8278 or reach out to us online.