While the first conviction under Britain’s new sex-based harassment offence is a significant legal milestone, barrister Raj Joshi argues that it exposes how long women have been expected to tolerate behaviour that should always have been recognised as criminal

A woman sits on a train to London. A man she has never met decides her body is his to touch.

For years, this kind of behaviour has been dismissed as ‘minor’, ‘misunderstood’ or ‘not worth reporting’. The moment many women leave their homes, they are subjected to cat-calls, whistles, demands for phone numbers, comments on their appearance and abuse. Women have been told to move seats, keep their heads down and accept that public transport is an ordeal to be endured. Quite simply, it is pernicious victim-blaming.

But this time, the law finally caught up. Last month, David Stroud, 44, became the first person in the UK convicted under the new sex-based harassment offence. His sentence a 12-month community order, 15 rehabilitation days, 150 hours of unpaid work and a five-year restraining order is less important than the principle it establishes. For the first time, the criminal courts have, in effect, said, ‘This sort of behaviour is not normal. It is not harmless. It is not cultural. It is criminal.’ And frankly, it’s about time.

The new sex-based harassment offence exists because the previous legal framework left women exposed. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was never designed for the kind of single, sexually motivated intrusions that women endure daily on buses, trains, pavements and platforms. The new offence finally names the problem: sexually motivated conduct in public that causes harassment, alarm or distress.

The CPS has already confirmed that Stroud’s behaviour is exactly what Parliament intended to capture. British Transport Police have described the conviction as significant. And since the law came into force, there have already been 26 arrests. Twenty-six – in a matter of months. Far from being niche, this problem is clearly national in scale.

The judiciary has been signalling for over a decade that harassment is not trivial. In R v Curtis [2010], the Court of Appeal made clear that harassment is a course of conduct which causes alarm or distress; it need not involve threats or violence. In Hayes v Willoughby [2013], meanwhile, the Supreme Court shut down the ‘I didn’t mean it’ defence. It held that the question is not what the defendant thought his purpose was, but what a rational person would understand his purpose to be.

And in Majrowski [2006], the House of Lords reminded us that, “The purpose of this statute is to protect victims of harassment, whatever form the harassment takes, wherever it occurs and whatever its motivation… Harassment is not defined in the Act, but it includes causing anxiety or distress..”

Yet women have continued to be told to tolerate that conduct – daily, publicly, and silently.

Thus, the law was ahead of the culture, which refused to listen.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 also provides a clear test for what constitutes sexual conduct. Section 78 is clear: context and purpose matter. In R v H [2005], the House of Lords confirmed that touching a complainant’s clothing or hair may be sexual if, viewed objectively, it is capable of being sexual and the defendant’s purpose is sexual. This is not complicated, and never was.

While we should commend this first-of-its kind conviction, at the same time we should view it as an indictment. It exposes how long women have been expected to endure behaviour that men would never accept for themselves. It exposes how many incidents have gone unreported because women believed, often correctly, that nothing would be done. It exposes how deeply behaviour has been normalised simply because it has been commonplace.

The law has finally caught up with reality, and now society needs to catch up with the law. Women should not have to calculate escape routes on public transport. They should not have to brace themselves for comments, unwanted touching or entitlement. They should not have to shrink themselves in order to stay safe. The conviction of David Stroud is a start, but if it is to mean anything, it must mark the beginning of a broader cultural shift rather than becoming a legal footnote.

The real scandal is not that this is the first conviction but that it took until 2026 to get one.

Dr Raj Joshi is a senior barrister and prominent civil rights advocate whose career spans frontline legal practice, regulatory reform, and international justice. Twice named among the ‘Top 10 Asian Lawyers in the UK’ and listed in the ‘100 Most Influential Asians in the UK’, he has appeared before major inquiries, including giving evidence in the Stephen Lawrence case, and served as Chair of the Society of Black Lawyers. A former Adjudicator to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, Dr Joshi has advised ministers, helped shape legal protocols, and represented the UK in international legal forums.

READ MORE: ‘How Britain is sleepwalking into an Orwellian data state‘. From policing and healthcare to migration and defence, advanced analytics is increasingly becoming embedded across the British state. Dr Raj Joshi argues that existing legal safeguards were not designed for this new era of data-driven governance, and that the consequences for privacy and democratic accountability could be profound.

Do you have news to share or expertise to contribute? The European welcomes insights from business leaders and sector specialists. Get in touch with our editorial team to find out more.

_{Main Image: Dipayan Paul/Pexels}