ON APPEAL FROM THE CAMBRIDGE COUNTY COURT
His Honour Judge Moloney QC
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN
LORD JUSTICE GROSS
|- and -
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400, Fax No: 020 7404 1424
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr Clive Wolman for the Respondent
Hearing date: 17th November 2011
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Moses:
"I believe that there is no response from me short of some serious punishment of Mr Hayes which will satisfy your issues with him";
and from Detective Sergeant Hearty of the Suffolk Constabulary on 22 November 2007:-
"As an experienced detective who has worked in the fraud area for well over a decade, I can personally say that the evidence that is available is insufficient to take this matter to a criminal court";
and from the CIB of the DTI on 29 July 2008, in declining to consider any future request for investigation of:-
"the now arguably stale concerns about inter-company management charges levied over the period 2001-2005, [is] perhaps not the response you were hoping for but one I feel is wholly justified by the circumstances of the case."
The judge's findings of fact in relation to the allegations of fraud and criminality between 2002 and 2009 are as follows:-
"30. In fairness to W, his position is that the various investigative bodies have persistently failed either to understand the nature of his concerns or to produce a convincing answer to them. He is a very intelligent and persistent man, and while it is easy to sympathise with the busy officials with whom he deals, it is also true that he has often been able to identify some unanswered question which calls for a further response. The position has now been reached that most of the relevant bodies are refusing to have any more to do with him, [the defendant], in particular because of their perception that when one of his allegations is conclusively refuted he will simply change his ground and put forward another with equal force. The inevitable conclusion is that he has developed an unshakeable conviction of H's criminal guilt which now precedes rather than follows any objective assessment by him of the evidence."
"So long as W could credibly maintain that the investigations into H were based on insufficient evidence, and that key documents were being overlooked, the general thrust of his campaign remained a reasonable one to pursue. But, as he himself stated to the OR on 5 June 2007, the crucial evidence was that of the company's bank statements, which if examined would prove or refute the truth of W's suspicions about H's conduct. From the time when he was notified by the OR on 14 June 2007 that the evidence had been examined, and that it did not support his case, or at the latest from 21 September 2007 when the OR sent him a schedule accounting for 'substantially the whole of the book debts (of UK) outstanding at 31 December 2002', it appears to me that W's persistence in his campaign exceeded even the widest limits of reasonableness and became unreasonable and obsessive; even though he still disagreed with the OR's conclusions, and could articulate reasons for doing so, the time had come to let matters rest." 
"'What would satisfy you, so that you would cease involvement in my life?' His reply was revealing: he wanted to solve the puzzle and understand what happened to the money; it was 'an intellectual problem, like playing bridge'."
"It is an indication of the intensity of the defendant's and his associate's hostility to and suspicion of [the claimant] at this time that intelligent men could entertain such an absurd idea or act upon it in the excessive and disproportionate manner that they did."
The third example related to another incident in March 2005 when the defendant telephoned Mr Hayes' landlord in the United States and left a voicemail saying that he was entering the bankruptcy court the next day, that the house occupied by Mr Hayes would now be available to rent, and asked whether Mr Hayes owed the landlord any money. The judge described this conduct as inexcusable.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
"1. Prohibition of harassment
(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct –
(a) which amounts of harassment of another, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to or involves harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to or involved harassment of the other.
(3) Subsection (1) or (1A) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows –
(a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,
(b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or
(c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable."
Section 2 creates a criminal offence if the person pursues a course of conduct in breach of s.1(1). Section 3 provides a civil remedy and for the arrest on warrant of a defendant in respect of whom an injunction has been granted.
"is not designed to enable any Tom, Dick or Harry to set himself up as a vigilante and harass his neighbours under the guise of preventing or detecting crime"  (approved in Callaghan v Independent News and Media Limited  NIQB 1).
A vigilante may profess a purpose within section 1(3)(a) which is belied by the nature, extent and duration of the course of conduct he pursues.
1) Not to contact or communicate directly or indirectly in any way whatsoever with Timothy Hayes, Margaret Hayes or their children;
2) Not to communicate directly or indirectly in any way whatsoever with any third party any matter concerning Timothy Hayes, Margaret Hayes or any of the companies Nucleus Information Systems Ltd., IT-Map (UK) Ltd., IT-Map Inc., IT-Map International;
3) Not to collect any information, physical or digital, relating to Timothy Hayes, Margaret Hayes or any of the companies Nucleus Information Systems Ltd., It-Map (UK) Ltd., IT-Map Inc., It-Map International;
PROVIDED THAT the terms of this Injunction shall not prevent Michael
Willoughby being, and preparing to be, a witness in any other litigation
involving Timothy Hayes, Margaret Hayes and any other parties.
4) Both parties have liberty to apply to vary the terms of this Injunction.
Lord Justice Sullivan:
Lord Justice Gross: