How can mens rea in illegal staring be proved beyond reasonable doubt?

Question

I saw this in London tube the other day:

Intrusive staring of a sexual nature is sexual harassment and is not tolerated.

See it or experience it on public transport? Always report by texting British Transport Police...

So, suppose Alice experiences or sees that Bob is silently staring, and she thinks his staring is "of a sexual nature".

But how can Alice's testimony possibly prove beyond reasonable doubt that Bob indeed stared with sexual thoughts in his mind? How can prosecuting these crimes possibly be successful and not overturnable on appeal? Are these ads simply an attempt to scare potential sexual starers out of staring, without any real intention to prosecute them?

"Mens rea" in this context is assumed to be the intention for the staring to be of a sexual nature (vs. the intention to stare full stop).

Answer 1

But how can Alice's testimony possibly prove beyond reasonable doubt that Bob indeed stared with sexual thoughts in his mind? How can prosecuting these crimes possibly be successful and not overturnable on appeal? Are these ads simply an attempt to scare potential sexual starers out of staring, without any real intention to prosecute them?

Mens rea can be, and routinely is, proved with circumstantial evidence. It is the rare exception case where it is proved through a direct confession from a criminal suspect who is not pleading guilty.

The length and direction of the stare (e.g. looking up a skirt or down a blouse for many seconds or longer for no good reason), a lack of plausible alternative reasons for doing so, a history of similar conduct, conversation from the person made during or close in time to when the incident occurred, a wink at the victim or a third-party watching things unfold, the staring person's hand in their pocket touching themselves, and later statements made on social media by that person not particular to the incident, for example, could all support a mens rea finding.

In general, a mens rea finding will be upheld on appeal if there is any admissible circumstantial or direct evidence was presented at trial from which a finder of fact (jury or judge as the case may be) could reasonable infer that intent. It would only be overturned on appeal if there were no admissible evidence presented that could support that conclusion.

The ads are not simply an idle threat made with no real intention to prosecute them.

Answer 2

england-and-wales

The poster referred to by the question is part of a campaign intended to help deter, detect and punish such wrongdoing.

There is no specific offence of "intrusive staring" or "staring of a sexual nature".

It's likely an offender would be charged with causing harassment, alarm or distress under section 4A or section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (if the offender were charged at all). They are both summary only offences, so they will be heard by a magistrate.

Neither s4A nor s5 require proof of sexual intent or harassment etc, so it's unnecessary to prove that.

The section 4A offence requires proof of intent, so in principle it's more difficult to prove than section 5 and it's the more serious offence of the two.

Intent can be inferred from the circumstances. The finder of fact (in this case a magistrate) must make an assessment of the defendant's state of mind at the time given all the evidence. The prosecution must persuade the finder of fact to be sure that the defendant had the offending state of mind; for s4A this is the intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

Perhaps confusingly, intent is not the same as purpose. You might not have the purpose of causing harassment, alarm or distress but if you act in such a way as to cause that or it was a virtual certainty of your conduct then it can be found that you had that intent (Crown Court Compendium June 2023 edition, part 1, 8-1).

Some articles about the-then new poster campaign mentioned that a man had recently been sentenced to 22 weeks in prison for the s4A offence. He had sat next to a woman on a train, stared at her for an uncomfortably long time and ignored her several requests to stop staring at her (BBC, LBC.

Answer 3

The poster in question is actually misleading as per this law firm:

Staring at someone in a threatening way on public transport, on more than one occasion could potentially result in a prosecution for either harassment or stalking.

But it does not mean, as the TfL campaign strongly implies, that ‘intrusive staring of a sexual nature’ will, in itself, lead to prosecution for ‘sexual harassment’.

^{(emphasis mine)}

Transport for London says in relation to these posters:

The campaign aims to challenge the normalisation and dismissal of this behaviour as 'something that happens' to women and girls on public transport and in other public spaces, making it clear that it is never acceptable and that the strongest possible action will always be taken.

That said, the poster is just a daring attempt to change the norms at the pretense that the subject behaviour is a crime. But even if Bob stares at Alice's forms in the most cheeky, lewd and intrusive way on one occasion, there would not be a case to answer. So any considerations in relation to proving mens rea are irrelevant.