Ban on having private phone part of penalty

Press, 30 August 1986, Page 4

Ban on having private phone part of penalty

The use of a private telephone will be denied to Stuart John Duncan for a year: as part of his penalty for offences involving a threat, and disturbance made through telephone calls to a couple’s house. Duncan, aged 36, a sickness beneficiary, was appearing for sentence before Judge Ross, in the District Court yesterday, on charges of threatening to do grievous bodily harm to a woman last December 24, and using a telephone to disturb the woman’s husband on June 2 this year. On the charge of threatening to do grievous bodily harm, which Duncan had denied, he was placed under the supervision of a probation officer for a year, with a condition that he does not have the use of a private telephone during this time. On the charge of using his telephone to disturb

a person, he was fined $75.

He also was ordered to pay $l4O as the cost of the Post Office installing equipment in the complainant’s house in relation to the telephone calls.

Evidence at the defended hearing earlier this month was that the complainant, who is an executive officer of a Christchurch institution, received at least 400 telephone calls, mostly between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m., during a period of two years and three months.

The woman complainant’s evidence was that the caller played what she took to be a tape recording.

The voice mentioned calling round to break her jaw.

A call made at 12.25 a.m. on June 2 was “locked,” with the use of equipment which had been installed, and the call was traced to Dun-

can’s flat In his flat 13 tape cassettes, a tape recorder, an electrical adapter, connector, and a telephone monitoring adapter were found. Duncan gave evasive answers when questioned about the telephone calls. Defence counsel, Mr G. S. Collin, sought a suspended sentence, and fine, for the offences. He said the offences were not likely to recur. The Judge said modem technology had put in the hands of people the means to do some actions which would have been unheard of in “the horse-and-cart days.” In this case, an intelligent, able man had been able to record telephone conversations, play these over the telephone, and use these to threaten the complainant in this matter.

Although the defendant was intelligent and able,

he was emotionally and socially unstable, and imperceptive of the results of his actions, the Judge said. He said the defendant’s actions were a serious misuse of the telephone

system. He said it was highly unlikely that Duncan would have followed up the threat with any physical action. A prison sentence was not appropriate.