Piggott v Walker-Davidson - [2025] VSC 304

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2023 03925

MARK PIGGOTT	Appellant
v
TALI WALKER-DAVIDSON	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Tsalamandris J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 May 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 June 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Piggott v Walker-Davidson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 304

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEAL – Appeal from decision of magistrate – Stalking charge – Course of conduct included online messages to the victim through various platforms, and attempting to enrol at an online language school where the victim taught – Magistrate correctly considered appellant’s collective acts, not the individual acts – Where magistrate was satisfied those collective acts constituted a course of conduct with a continuity of purpose - Three alternative bases for finding that a course of conduct was intended to cause harm, or arouse apprehension or fear – Where no evidence the accused intended or knew the course of conduct would likely cause harm, or arouse apprehension or fear, the relevant question is what the accused ought to have understood in all the particular circumstances – Objective test – No subjective element – Meaning of ‘likely’ – Recklessness not required – No error of law by magistrate – No procedural errors by magistrate – Berlyn v Brouskos (2002) 134 A Crim R 111 – Thomas v Campbell & Ors (2003) 9 VR 136 – R vHoang (2007) 16 VR 369– RR v The Queen [2013] VSCA 147 – Georgiou v The King [2022] VSCA 220 – Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 21A – Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), ss 272, 353, 356, 357, 360.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	In person
For the Respondent	Ms E Ruddle KC	Office of Public Prosecutions

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preliminary.......................................................................................................................................... 1

Relevant principles and legislation................................................................................................ 2

Magistrates’ Court proceeding........................................................................................................ 9

Questions of law and grounds of appeal.................................................................................... 16

Section 21A (2)............................................................................................................................. 16
Section 21A(3)(b)......................................................................................................................... 18
Taking into account irrelevant factors..................................................................................... 21

Additional submissions.................................................................................................................. 21

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 24

HER HONOUR:

Preliminary

The appellant, Mr Piggott, is appealing a decision of a magistrate to convict him on one charge of stalking under s 21A of the Crimes Act 1958. This appeal is made pursuant to s 272 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009.

The appellant first connected with the complainant, the victim of the stalking charge, through an online dating app in June 2021. Thereafter, the appellant and complainant met up on four or five occasions, and had sexual relations once. The complainant then informed the appellant that she did not want a relationship with him. The stalking charge related to an alleged course of conduct by the appellant towards the complainant from 11 July 2021 to 9 February 2022. This included: sending lengthy messages demanding the complainant speak to him in person; messaging the complainant on WhatsApp after she blocked him on her mobile phone; connecting with three of the complainant’s Facebook friends; contacting…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Piggott v Walker-Davidson

Details

AGLC: Piggott v Walker-Davidson [2025] VSC 304
Case: [2025] VSC 304
Decision Date: 11 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Piggott appealed against a conviction for stalking, which included charges of engaging in a course of conduct that amounted to stalking. The respondent, Walker-Davidson, argued that the conduct included sending messages to the victim via various online platforms and attempting to enroll in a language school where the victim taught. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal in Victoria. The appeal contested the magistrate’s decision that the appellant’s course of conduct amounted to stalking. The central legal issues were whether the magistrate had correctly interpreted the relevant sections of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) and Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) in relation to the definition of stalking and whether the magistrate’s findings were supported by the evidence presented.

The court considered whether the magistrate correctly assessed the appellant's collective actions rather than individual acts and whether these actions constituted a course of conduct with a continuity of purpose. The court held that the magistrate had correctly applied the relevant legal principles, including the objective test for determining whether a course of conduct was intended to cause harm, or arouse apprehension or fear. The court emphasised that the test for determining whether a course of conduct amounted to stalking did not require the accused to know or intend to cause harm, but rather what the accused should have understood in the circumstances. The court also noted that the term 'likely' did not require a high probability, and recklessness was not a necessary element. The court found that the magistrate's decision was consistent with the authorities cited and that there was no error of law or procedural error. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders