Cyber Stalking Prosecutions
π What Is Cyberstalking?
Cyberstalking is the use of electronic communication (e.g. social media, email, messaging apps) to harass, threaten, monitor, or control another person repeatedly and unlawfully.
It is a criminal offence in many jurisdictions, often prosecuted under harassment, stalking, or misuse of communications laws.
βοΈ Key Legal Elements in Cyberstalking Prosecutions
To prosecute cyberstalking, the prosecution usually must prove:
A course of conduct (i.e. more than one incident).
The accused used digital/online communication tools.
The victim felt fear, distress, alarm, or harassment.
There was intent to cause harm (or recklessness).
π§Ύ Landmark Cases on Cyberstalking Prosecution
1. R v. Nimmo & Sorley (2014) β UK
Facts:
Two individuals sent abusive, threatening messages to feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez via Twitter after she advocated for women on British currency.
Charges:
Prosecuted under the Malicious Communications Act 1988.
Outcome:
Both pleaded guilty and received custodial sentences.
Importance:
One of the first high-profile UK cyberstalking cases.
Demonstrated that social media abuse can lead to criminal charges and real penalties.
2. United States v. Sayer (2012) β US (Maine)
Facts:
Defendant created fake online profiles of his ex-girlfriend, posting explicit content and impersonating her. He also posted her real address online.
Legal Issues:
Charged with interstate stalking, identity theft, and cyber harassment.
Ruling:
Convicted on multiple counts. The court held that posting harmful or sexual content online to intimidate someone amounts to cyberstalking.
Significance:
Expanded the definition of cyberstalking to include non-direct threats, such as posting humiliating or dangerous content.
3. R v. Paterson (2015) β UK
Facts:
Paterson harassed his ex-partner via text messages and emails, and monitored her social media activity obsessively.
Charges:
Charged under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Decision:
Convicted. The court said repeated unwanted digital contact that causes fear/distress qualifies as harassment/stalking.
Key Point:
Even without physical contact or direct threats, online fixation can amount to stalking.
4. Commonwealth v. Dungan (2014) β US (Massachusetts)
Facts:
Defendant sent over 200 text messages, emails, and voicemails to a former partner.
Legal Issue:
Prosecuted under state stalking laws with digital elements.
Judgment:
Convicted. The court emphasized the volume and persistence of contact created reasonable fear in the victim.
Lesson:
Courts weigh frequency, content, and emotional impact of the digital contact β not just physical proximity.
5. R v. Debnath (2012) β UK
Facts:
Defendant ran anonymous blogs accusing a professor of misconduct, posting personal details and false information.
Charge:
Prosecuted under the Communications Act 2003.
Outcome:
Found guilty. Court ruled that repeated, malicious online commentary can be criminal.
Takeaway:
Cyberstalking includes anonymous and public digital abuse β not just direct messages.
6. People v. Selinger (2018) β US (California)
Facts:
Selinger stalked a female colleague by constantly emailing her, commenting on her online profiles, and attempting to track her location.
Result:
Convicted under Californiaβs cyberstalking laws, especially after it was shown the behaviour escalated despite warnings.
Significance:
Highlighted importance of patterns of escalating digital behaviour in cyberstalking prosecutions.
π Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Issue | Outcome | Key Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Nimmo & Sorley (2014) | UK | Twitter abuse | Convicted | Social media threats = cyberstalking |
| US v. Sayer (2012) | USA | Fake profiles + explicit content | Convicted | Online impersonation + harm = stalking |
| R v. Paterson (2015) | UK | Repeated digital contact | Convicted | Harassment via texts and emails upheld |
| Comm. v. Dungan (2014) | USA | Over 200 messages | Convicted | Persistence & fear = stalking |
| R v. Debnath (2012) | UK | Malicious blogs | Convicted | Anonymous abuse = prosecutable |
| People v. Selinger (2018) | USA | Escalating contact | Convicted | Repetition + tracking = cyberstalking |
π Key Takeaways on Cyberstalking Prosecutions
Repetition and intent are central: one message may not count, but a pattern does.
Online anonymity does not protect offenders from prosecution.
Cyberstalking can include:
Social media messages
Threats or abuse via email or text
Fake profiles and impersonation
Posting private or sexual content
Courts consider the impact on the victim, especially fear, humiliation, or distress.
Penalties can include fines, restraining orders, and prison.
RELATED Blog
0 comments