Catcalling and Criminal Liability: What the New Law Changes and What It Doesn’t

Words by Victoria Oluwajobi

As of April 2026, a new offence under the Public Order Act 1986 has come into force in England and Wales, targeting intentional harassment, alarm or distress in public where the conduct is motivated by the victim’s sex. Politically and publicly, this has often been framed as a move to tackle behaviours such as catcalling.

As Jess Phillips, Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, has stated, the focus is no longer on asking women and girls to change their behaviour, but on those who choose to target and intimidate them.

At first glance, this appears to be a clear and necessary step in addressing public sexual harassment. But the legal reality is more nuanced. The law does not create a specific offence of “catcalling.” Instead, it creates a route to criminal liability for certain forms of behaviour commonly described that way, but only where a defined legal threshold is met.

To understand the impact of this development, it is important to start with the structure of criminal liability. Before a person can be convicted of this offence, the prosecution must prove:

• Intent, that the defendant intended to cause harassment, alarm or distress

• Conduct and impact, that their behaviour did in fact cause harassment, alarm or distress

• Motivation, that the conduct was carried out because of the victim’s sex

These elements must be supported by evidence and proven beyond reasonable doubt. This reflects the structure of existing public order offences, while adding a distinct requirement of sex based motivation.

The Real Limitation

Most behaviour described as catcalling occurs briefly, often between strangers, and in public spaces where evidence is limited. There may be no witnesses, no recording, and no clear indication of intent or motivation.

This immediately restricts the number of cases that can realistically progress. Criminal law operates on proof, not assumption. What matters is not simply what happened, but what can be demonstrated in court.

What About Freedom of Expression?

Freedom of expression, protected under the Human Rights Act 1998, allows individuals to express views and opinions, even where they may be unpopular or offensive.

However, that right is qualified. The law has long drawn a boundary where speech crosses into harassment. The challenge is that this boundary is highly contextual.

Take a remark such as shouting, “go on ladies, get running,” at a group of joggers. It may be dismissed as a passing comment. It may also be experienced as targeted and intrusive. The legal question is not simply what was said, but whether, in context, it was intended to cause and did cause harassment, alarm or distress, and whether it was motivated by the group’s sex.

The answer will not always be clear cut.

Social Impact Will the Law Change Behaviour?

The introduction of this offence sends a clear normative message about what is considered unacceptable in public spaces. It may encourage reporting and provide a stronger basis for intervention in more serious cases.

However, its impact on everyday behaviour remains uncertain. The effectiveness of the law depends on:

• the willingness of individuals to report incidents

• the availability of evidence

• consistent enforcement by police

• public understanding of where the legal boundary lies

The law can define standards and provide remedies, but it does not automatically reshape social norms.

Conclusion

The law now provides a clearer mechanism for addressing certain forms of public harassment, including behaviour sometimes described as catcalling, where it is intentional, harmful, and motivated by sex.

But drawing that legal line is not the same as enforcing it. The requirement to prove intent, impact, and motivation means that the threshold remains high. This is an important safeguard against over criminalisation, but it also limits how often the law can be used in practice.

The key question is not simply whether this law exists. It is whether it will be used and whether, over time, it will meaningfully influence behaviour in public spaces.