R v Rosenlund - [1997] QCA 311

[1997] QCA 311

COURT OF APPEAL

MACROSSAN CJ McPHERSON JA de JERSEY J

CA 271 OF 1997
THE QUEEN
v.

ADAM CAMPBELL ROSENLUND	Applicant
BRISBANE ..DATE 26/08/97
JUDGMENT 260897 T11-12/JAP/20 M/T COA 193/97

McPHERSON JA: The applicant was sentenced on a plea of guilty to imprisonment for two and a half years on one count of stalking committed between 1 October 1995 and 28 November 1995.

The victim was a 22-year-old married woman who worked in a clothing shop at the Myer Centre in the city. She was a complete stranger to the applicant. He first appeared at the shop in October 1995 and said he wished to try on some women's clothing. He was advised to return at 5.00 p.m. when other customers would be absent and he did so. On arrival he began behaving strangely and security guards were called, whereupon he became aggressive and began yelling at them.

He returned to the shop on 19 October and was seen looking at himself in a mirror. When the complainant called a security guard he turned on her and said, "You f'ing bitch." He came back on 26 October and proceeded to stand and stare at the complainant. When she asked whether there was a problem he smiled and walked away.

His next visit was on 8 November, but on that occasion he left before the security guards arrived. They found him and brought him back, whereupon he shouted at the complainant and the other shop assistants, "F'ing bitches, I have done nothing. You f'ing bitches." At 11.00 a.m. on 24 November he returned to the shop again and stood looking at the complainant.

After a security guard was called he went up the escalator pointing his finger at the complainant as if it were a pistol.

260897 T11-12/JAP/20 M/T COA 193/97
At 1.00 p.m., on the same day, he came back again, pointed at
the complainant and shouted, "What is her name? I want to know
her name." He was escorted out and the police later called on
him at his home.

When interviewed, he said that the complainant had taken a fancy to him, liked to see him going up escalators and kept looking at his buttocks. He added that there was a relationship between her and one of the security guards. Otherwise, he generally denied the allegations that were put to him.

This naturally all had a very disturbing effect on the complainant. She became so scared that, at work, she needed to be accompanied by someone else when going to the toilet, and she became afraid to walk out into the Mall. She began working only part-time and at what might be described as unexpected hours in order to avoid being seen by the applicant. Eventually, she gave up her job. She still feels nervous walking in the city.

The maximum sentence for stalking without, as is the case here, any circumstances of aggravation is imprisonment for three years. The records of sentencing for…

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 R v Rosenlund

Details

AGLC: R v Rosenlund [1997] QCA 311
Case: [1997] QCA 311
Decision Date: 26/08/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Rosenlund, the applicant, Adam Campbell Rosenlund, was sentenced to imprisonment for two and a half years on a plea of guilty to a count of stalking. The victim, a 22-year-old woman, was subjected to repeated harassment by Rosenlund at a clothing shop where she worked. Rosenlund's behaviour included aggressive outbursts, verbal abuse, and attempts to follow the victim. The woman was deeply affected by these incidents, experiencing severe anxiety and eventually leaving her job.

The legal issues in the case centred on whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was excessive. Rosenlund, who had a history of violent and irrational offences, argued that the sentence was disproportionate to the offence of stalking. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the sentence was appropriate in light of Rosenlund's extensive criminal history and the need for rehabilitation and public protection.

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, found that the sentence was not excessive. The judges considered Rosenlund's lengthy criminal record, which included multiple violent offences, and his failure to respond to previous attempts at rehabilitation. The court concluded that a lengthy prison term was necessary to provide Rosenlund with the opportunity for psychiatric treatment and to protect the community from his potential for escalating violent behaviour. The appeal was thus refused, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders