A 47-YEAR-OLD man who harassed a woman and her family over the course of several months “because he couldn’t help himself” has been spared jail.
James Nicholas Stangroom was sentenced to 160 hours of community service, put on probation for a year and handed a restraining order banning him from any contact with the victims for five years, after he admitted the charges of harassment.
He was warned that if he reoffended, it would be “extremely difficult to avoid prison”.
Legal adviser Paul Lee, prosecuting, told the Magistrate’s Court yesterday that in June last year, Stangroom went to the family’s home, banged on the door, rang the doorbell and pushed unwanted messages through the letterbox.
Over the coming months, he also phoned the woman’s landline and mobile phone during the night, sent text messages to her mobile and would turn up at her workplace and make accusations about her to work colleagues, claiming she was a prostitute.
He would also go to the church the family attended.
The family all made statements to the police about his behaviour.
“The events caused a great deal of distress,” Mr Lee said.
In August last year, Stangroom had been warned not to harass the family but the legal adviser added: “He continued thereafter to do just that. He told the police he couldn’t help himself.”
Months later, Mr Lee related, Stangroom began harassing a man who he believed was having a relationship with the woman, bombarding him with phone messages and making face-to-face accusations in front of the man’s family.
“There was a catalogue of incidents,” he said.
Advocate Chris Baglin, defending, pointed out that Stangroom did not shout at the woman or her family.
He said: “He was just speaking to them. There have never been any threats or aggression.”
He also said Stangroom had not at first fully understood or reflected on the impact his actions would have, but added: “Those scales have been falling from his eyes.”
And he said: “We have a guilty plea and previous good character.”
Relief Magistrate Sarah Fitz said the offences could have resulted in a jail sentence, telling Stangroom: “Your behaviour, as you now seem to realise, was reprehensible. The upset you have caused was extreme.”
She said his guilty plea and previous good character allowed her to impose a non-custodial sentence, but warned him against breaching the orders, saying: “It would be extremely difficult to avoid prison.”
