The Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 is now in force and has inserted a new section, 4B, into the Public Order Act 1986. The new section came into force on 1 April 2026 and creates an aggravated version of the existing offence of intentional harassment, alarm or distress, where the conduct is carried out because of a person’s sex or presumed sex. It carries a maximum sentence of up to two years’ imprisonment.
The first conviction followed quickly – a man was sentenced after pleading guilty to intentionally harassing a woman because of her sex, following an incident on a train in which he made unwanted comments, grabbed her hair and continued his actions despite her clear discomfort. The CPS described it as the first conviction under the new sex-based harassment offence.
The type of behaviour potentially caught by the offence is broad. The Home Office guidance refers to persistent obscene, sexual or aggressive comments or gestures, obstructing someone’s journey, cornering them, uninvited touching, unnecessarily invading personal space in a threatening way, threats to commit a sexual offence, and persistent intimidation by a group.
In everyday terms, this may include conduct commonly described as cat-calling, wolf-whistling, blocking someone’s path, repeatedly pursuing them after rejection, or touching a stranger’s hair or body without consent — but only where the legal elements are proved.
That is the important qualification. The offence does not criminalise every awkward exchange, failed flirtation or unwanted conversation. Prosecutors must prove the underlying offence and that the behaviour was because of the victim’s sex or presumed sex.
The difficult question is where do you draw the line between romantic pursuit and harassment?
For years, newspapers such as Metro have run light-hearted columns such as Rush Hour Crush, where commuters try to reconnect with strangers they briefly noticed on trains, tubes or buses. These are often framed as romantic missed connections rather than harassment. But would every public approach now carry legal risk?
A respectful approach which stops when interest is not reciprocated is very different from conduct which becomes persistent, intimidating, sexualised or physically intrusive.
Consider a real-life example. A man falls onto a woman on a train when it suddenly stops. For him, it is love at first sight. He asks her for a drink and she initially rejects him, but he persists in asking again, they eventually go out, marry, have children and remain together. Told romantically, it sounds like fate. Viewed legally, however, the facts matter. If the original contact was accidental and the later interaction became consensual, no offence arises. But if his pursuit had caused her distress, continued despite clear rejection, and involved threatening, abusive or insulting conduct because she was a woman, the criminal law could potentially be engaged.
That is the tension at the heart of the new offence. It is designed to protect people, particularly women and girls from degrading and intimidating behaviour in public spaces. It is important that it is applied carefully so that ordinary human interaction is not wrongly reframed as criminal conduct.
A glance across a train carriage is not a crime. A polite conversation is not a crime. Persistent pursuit after rejection, sexualised comments, blocking someone’s way, invading personal space or touching someone without invitation may now fall firmly on the wrong side of the line.
The new section 4B offence is therefore not a ban on romance. It is a warning that behaviour dressed up as “banter” may be criminal where it is intentional, distressing and sex-based.
For more information and if you have a concern regarding a sex-based harassment allegation, please contact our criminal law team in confidence by emailing enquiries@bpcollins.co.uk or calling 01753 889995.
