Stalking And Threats
1. Understanding Stalking
Stalking is the repeated and unwanted attention, harassment, or contact directed at a specific person that causes fear or apprehension for their safety.
Key elements generally include:
Repeated conduct – A single incident usually does not constitute stalking; it requires a pattern.
Intentional or reckless behavior – The perpetrator knows, or ought to know, their behavior causes fear or distress.
Fear or apprehension – The victim must experience reasonable fear for their safety or the safety of others.
Form of conduct – Can be physical following, online harassment, unwanted communication, surveillance, gifts, or showing up uninvited.
Legal basis: Many jurisdictions have specific stalking statutes, often included under criminal harassment or anti-stalking laws.
2. Understanding Threats
Threats are communications or actions that convey an intention to cause harm to a person, their property, or someone close to them.
Key elements:
Expression of intent to harm – Can be verbal, written, electronic, or physical gestures.
Reasonable fear – The victim must perceive the threat as real and credible.
Mens rea – The perpetrator must intend or be reckless regarding the fear caused.
Threats are usually criminalized as uttering threats, criminal intimidation, or cyber threats depending on jurisdiction.
3. Distinction Between Stalking and Threats
Stalking focuses on repetitive behavior causing fear.
Threats focus on specific acts or words conveying intent to harm.
Often, stalking involves threats as one component of a larger pattern of harassment.
Landmark Case Law on Stalking and Threats
1. R v. Bowes (2000, UK)
Facts:
The defendant repeatedly followed a woman, sent letters, and appeared outside her home.
Court Holding:
The court held that repeated unwanted conduct causing fear of violence constitutes stalking, even if the defendant did not make a direct threat.
Key principle: Pattern + fear = stalking.
Impact:
This case helped establish that stalking can occur without explicit threats if the conduct causes reasonable fear.
2. R v. Curtis (2010, UK)
Facts:
Defendant sent threatening emails and messages to his ex-partner after a breakup.
Court Holding:
Repetition of harassing communications combined with threatening content amounted to criminal harassment and threats.
The court emphasized intent to cause fear or distress as crucial.
Impact:
Clarified that electronic communication counts as stalking and threats.
3. R v. Mehus (2016, Canada, Supreme Court of Canada)
Facts:
Defendant sent repeated unwanted communications and sometimes threats to a co-worker.
Court Holding:
The Supreme Court held that even indirect threats, when combined with persistent conduct, could establish criminal harassment.
Reasonable fear of harm is sufficient; the victim does not need to be physically harmed.
Impact:
Confirmed that stalking and threats can overlap and broadened the scope of criminal liability.
4. R v. Sullivan (2003, Australia)
Facts:
Defendant stalked and threatened his ex-partner over several months, including physical intimidation and phone threats.
Court Holding:
The court held that cumulative effect of multiple actions, even minor individually, can constitute stalking.
Threats within stalking behavior can increase severity of sentencing.
Impact:
Emphasized that the pattern and totality of conduct matter more than individual acts.
5. R v. Rottman (2007, Canada)
Facts:
Defendant threatened neighbors and repeatedly followed them around, including taking photos of their home.
Court Holding:
Found guilty of stalking and uttering threats.
Court stressed that stalking does not require physical contact; repeated observation or surveillance qualifies.
Impact:
Expanded the legal understanding of stalking to include covert surveillance and intimidation.
6. State v. Myers (2012, USA, Supreme Court of Ohio)
Facts:
Defendant posted threats online against his ex-girlfriend and her family.
Court Holding:
Social media threats count as criminal intimidation when they cause reasonable fear.
Stalking laws were applied to online harassment.
Impact:
Acknowledged cyberstalking and online threats as equally punishable under stalking statutes.
7. DPP v. Collins (2002, UK)
Facts:
Defendant repeatedly loitered near a woman’s workplace and home, sending letters and making phone calls, but never physically attacked.
Court Holding:
Conduct amounted to stalking because it intimidated and caused fear, even without direct physical threat.
Courts highlighted that psychological impact is sufficient for conviction.
Impact:
Reinforced that stalking is psychological abuse, not only physical threats.
Summary of Legal Principles
| Principle | Explanation | Key Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Repetition matters | Stalking requires a pattern of conduct | Bowes, Sullivan |
| Fear is central | Victim must reasonably fear harm | Mehus, Collins |
| Threats amplify stalking | Threats, whether direct or implied, increase severity | Curtis, Rottman |
| Electronic/online harassment counts | Emails, messages, and social media posts qualify | Curtis, Myers |
| Physical harm not necessary | Psychological intimidation sufficient | Collins, Rottman |
Key Takeaways
Stalking and threats often overlap, but stalking emphasizes pattern, while threats emphasize specific communication of harm.
Courts focus on the victim’s reasonable fear, persistence of conduct, and the psychological impact.
Modern case law recognizes online stalking and threats as criminal offenses.
Sentences are often increased when stalking and threats are combined.
RELATED Blog
comments