R v Conde

The appeal by the appellant against his conviction and sentence was heard in the Court of Appeal. The appellant, a vexatious litigant, had been convicted of multiple counts of unlawful stalking against the complainant, who was the solicitor representing his former wife in a domestic violence order application. The prosecution detailed 59 acts of stalking, ranging from sending emails with unfounded allegations to physical attempts to serve legal documents. The appellant admitted some acts but denied they constituted the offence. The court had to decide whether the jury's conclusion that the appellant's conduct was unlawful stalking was reasonable and supported by the evidence, particularly regarding the requirement of detriment and the necessity of a legitimate interest or public dispute.

The court considered whether it was open to the jury to conclude that the appellant's emails, despite their lack of foundation, were part of a course of conduct that constituted stalking. The court found that it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that the appellant's actions, though not causing direct detriment, interfered with the complainant's right to go about her daily life without fear of harassment. Regarding the requirement of detriment, the court held that it was not necessary for each individual act to cause detriment, but the cumulative effect of the series of acts could be considered. The court also addressed the appellant's attempt to file a summons, noting that while it did not cause detriment, it was part of a broader course of conduct that could be seen as stalking. The court concluded that the primary judge's failure to direct the jury regarding the requirement for multiple acts of stalking did not cause a substantial miscarriage of justice.

The court found that the appellant's actions, particularly the extensive admissions and the jury's finding on the circumstance of aggravation, supported the conclusion that the verdict was not unreasonable or unsustainable. Despite the defect in the direction given to the jury, the court determined that it did not cause a substantial miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld.