Last reviewed: Next review due:
The legal landscape for journalists making contact
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA) makes it a civil wrong and a criminal offence to pursue a course of conduct that amounts to harassment of another person. “Harassment” includes alarming a person or causing them distress. A “course of conduct” means conduct on at least two occasions (s.7(3)).
The PHA is explicitly capable of applying to journalists. Section 7(3A) confirms that a course of conduct by two people can constitute a course of conduct for one of them. This means that a coordinated press pack pursuing one individual — each making a single contact — can together constitute a harassing course of conduct.
The Act provides three defences under s.1(3): (a) the course of conduct was for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime; (b) it was pursued under a lawful authority; (c) it was reasonable in all the circumstances. Journalism relies on (c) — reasonableness in the circumstances — and on the explicit wording in s.12 that the Act does not constrain the exercise of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR any more than necessary.
When harassment law matters for journalists
- You are making multiple calls, emails, or visits to a reluctant or non-responding subject.
- You are planning or conducting a doorstep or confrontational interview.
- A photographer is following a subject through public or semi-public spaces.
- You are part of a press pack pursuing an individual in circumstances where each outlet is making individual contact.
- A subject or their solicitor has told you to stop making contact.
- A subject is in a state of grief or shock and you are attempting to approach them.
- You are planning a broadcast doorstep for an investigative programme.
- You have received a pre-action notice or solicitor's letter threatening PHA proceedings.
When doorstepping is and is not acceptable
Likely acceptable
- All other reasonable contact methods have been exhausted and declined.
- There is a genuine, documented public interest that cannot be served another way.
- The journalist clearly identifies themselves and their outlet at the outset.
- The approach is made at a reasonable time and in a public or semi-public place.
- The subject is allowed to leave; no obstruction or pursuit takes place.
- The journalist is polite and professional throughout.
- The subject's refusal is immediately respected and the contact ceases.
High risk / likely unacceptable
- Contact continues after a clear and unambiguous refusal.
- Multiple visits to the same address after an initial refusal.
- Doorstepping at a private address without any prior attempt to make contact.
- Pursuing a subject through the street or in their vehicle.
- Approaching subjects in a state of grief, shock, or acute distress.
- Contacting family members or colleagues as a pressure tactic.
- Refusing to stop filming when instructed on private property.
IPSO Editors’ Code: the key clauses
Clause 3 — Harassment
Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment, or persistent pursuit. They must not persist in calling, emailing, or messaging someone who has asked to be left alone. Editors and publishers must not instruct journalists to act in a way that would breach these provisions.
Clause 4 — Intrusion into grief or shock
Journalists must show sympathy and discretion when approaching anyone in a state of grief or shock. Enquiries and approaches must be made with sensitivity. Doorstepping bereaved families or individuals in acute distress is almost never defensible under this clause unless there is an overwhelming public interest.
Both clauses can be disapplied where there is a genuine public interest, but the editor must demonstrate that the public interest overrides the intrusion and that the approach was conducted as sensitively as the circumstances allowed.
Red flags
- The subject or their solicitor has sent a formal notice to stop contact and you have continued.
- You have made three or more contacts without response and are planning further contact.
- You are approaching someone at their home without any prior attempt to contact them through other means.
- The story is not genuinely in the public interest and you are struggling to articulate why the contact is necessary.
- You are pursuing family members or associates of the subject as an indirect pressure route.
- A colleague at another outlet is also making contact — meaning the combined conduct may constitute harassment.
- The approach involves deception as to your identity or purpose.
- A photographer is trailing the subject and the subject is aware and has objected.
Pre-doorstep checklist
- Documented all prior attempts to make contact (calls, emails, letters, official statements) and confirmed they have been exhausted.
- Recorded the clear public interest justification for the doorstep in the editorial file.
- Confirmed the approach will be made at a reasonable time and in an appropriate location.
- Prepared clear identification and outlet name to present immediately on making contact.
- Briefed the reporter that if declined, the contact must immediately cease.
- Considered whether a photographer is needed and whether their presence increases harassment risk.
- Checked whether any prior legal notice (solicitor's letter, pre-action letter) has been received about contact.
- Ensured no other outlet is coordinating on the same doorstep in a way that could create a joint course of conduct.
- For broadcast doorsteps: reviewed any applicable Ofcom Broadcasting Code requirements on fairness and consent.
Generate your right-of-reply request and log your risk
Use the Right of Reply Generator to draft a professional, timestamped contact request before considering more direct approaches. Use the Risk Register to document your public interest reasoning and the steps taken to obtain comment through normal channels first.
Common mistakes
- Treating a non-response to initial contact as permission to escalate to doorstepping without exhausting other approaches.
- Failing to immediately cease contact when a subject clearly and unambiguously says they do not wish to be contacted.
- Not keeping records of the contact attempts, which makes it impossible to demonstrate that prior attempts were made and declined.
- Ignoring a solicitor's letter threatening PHA proceedings without taking legal advice.
- Assuming that being in a public place makes any level of pursuit or persistence legally safe.
- Failing to consider the combined effect of your contact alongside contact by other outlets covering the same story.
- Not briefing freelance photographers who accompany you on the PHA restrictions on persistent photographic pursuit.
- Treating broadcast doorstepping (Panorama-style) as identical to print doorstepping — broadcast has additional Ofcom fairness obligations.