Quote:
Harassment Act 1977
"prohibits a person from pursuing "a course of conduct" which "amounts to harassment of another" and which "he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other". A person is taken to know that conduct is harassment if "a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other"
"This is the interpretation section. "Harassing" is defined (non-exclusively) as including "alarming" or "causing distress"."
|
So yeah, its an objective test. Meaning that they look at whether an ordinary person would know that what he is doing is harassing the other person.
That's where things like the scenario come into play (e.g its a publicity event, and these people are naked to attract attention). And other things like the person communicating to the photographer that they are being harassed by them.
So I think the answer is that it can be a harassment if the person says no, and they continue to do it, even in an event like wnbr.