I am not sure if this is the right group for inquiries like this one but it
seemed like a good spot to start.

I got a phone call from my mother-in-law saying that when she hits the power
switch on her e-machine nothing happens. She gets no lights or noises that
are normally expected during power-up. She asks me to come over to try to
fix it if I can.

When I get there I of course check to make sure that everything is plugged
in her power strip is turned on. everything looked normal. She has had
this machine for several years and has not had really any serious problems
with it until now.

I thought that she may have a bad power supply. I wasn't sure if power
supplies routinely go bad or not but I tested the one that was in the box
with a multimeter and did not get any readings from any of the peripheral
connectors.

I then went down to the local electronics store (Fry's) and purchased a new
power supply with the same specs as the original and returned to install it
for her.

Now here is the issue that I am trying to deal with. I installed the unit
in her machine and plugged in all the harnesses where they should be.
However, when I plugged the main power cord, both the fans (CPU fan as well
as the one inside the power supply) started turning slowly and I still
cannot get the machine to power up.

I am fairly confident that her original PS is bad because I brought it home
and tried to install that one in my computer and it did not work. The one
that I purchased is good because it is powering my PC even as I type this.

What I am wondering is, did I miss something? Could there be a problem with
either the MB or with the power switch?

Please help me out. Reply to the group(s) or you can email me directly.
Thanks in advance.

Gerry Morgan

I would disconnect the switches to the front of the machine and see if it
still turns on the fans, if so I think you have a bad motherboard
"MegaBuck$" <gerry.morgan@nospam.cox.net> wrote in message
news:QzWId.8221$0B.4890@fed1read02...
>I am not sure if this is the right group for inquiries like this one but it
>seemed like a good spot to start.
>
> I got a phone call from my mother-in-law saying that when she hits the
> power switch on her e-machine nothing happens. She gets no lights or
> noises that are normally expected during power-up. She asks me to come
> over to try to fix it if I can.
>
> When I get there I of course check to make sure that everything is plugged
> in her power strip is turned on. everything looked normal. She has had
> this machine for several years and has not had really any serious problems
> with it until now.
>
> I thought that she may have a bad power supply. I wasn't sure if power
> supplies routinely go bad or not but I tested the one that was in the box
> with a multimeter and did not get any readings from any of the peripheral
> connectors.
>
> I then went down to the local electronics store (Fry's) and purchased a
> new power supply with the same specs as the original and returned to
> install it for her.
>
> Now here is the issue that I am trying to deal with. I installed the unit
> in her machine and plugged in all the harnesses where they should be.
> However, when I plugged the main power cord, both the fans (CPU fan as
> well as the one inside the power supply) started turning slowly and I
> still cannot get the machine to power up.
>
> I am fairly confident that her original PS is bad because I brought it
> home and tried to install that one in my computer and it did not work.
> The one that I purchased is good because it is powering my PC even as I
> type this.
>
> What I am wondering is, did I miss something? Could there be a problem
> with either the MB or with the power switch?
>
> Please help me out. Reply to the group(s) or you can email me directly.
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Gerry Morgan
>

I would disconnect the switches to the front of the machine and see if it
still turns on the fans, if so I think you have a bad motherboard
"MegaBuck$" <gerry.morgan@nospam.cox.net> wrote in message
news:QzWId.8221$0B.4890@fed1read02...
>I am not sure if this is the right group for inquiries like this one but it
>seemed like a good spot to start.
>
> I got a phone call from my mother-in-law saying that when she hits the
> power switch on her e-machine nothing happens. She gets no lights or
> noises that are normally expected during power-up. She asks me to come
> over to try to fix it if I can.
>
> When I get there I of course check to make sure that everything is plugged
> in her power strip is turned on. everything looked normal. She has had
> this machine for several years and has not had really any serious problems
> with it until now.
>
> I thought that she may have a bad power supply. I wasn't sure if power
> supplies routinely go bad or not but I tested the one that was in the box
> with a multimeter and did not get any readings from any of the peripheral
> connectors.
>
> I then went down to the local electronics store (Fry's) and purchased a
> new power supply with the same specs as the original and returned to
> install it for her.
>
> Now here is the issue that I am trying to deal with. I installed the unit
> in her machine and plugged in all the harnesses where they should be.
> However, when I plugged the main power cord, both the fans (CPU fan as
> well as the one inside the power supply) started turning slowly and I
> still cannot get the machine to power up.
>
> I am fairly confident that her original PS is bad because I brought it
> home and tried to install that one in my computer and it did not work.
> The one that I purchased is good because it is powering my PC even as I
> type this.
>
> What I am wondering is, did I miss something? Could there be a problem
> with either the MB or with the power switch?
>
> Please help me out. Reply to the group(s) or you can email me directly.
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Gerry Morgan
>

Reinstall the power supply and make sure that all connections are secure and
that cpu, memory and add-in cards are properly seated.
If the computer will not post, if you do not hear a beep and see the BIOS
data on the monitor then it is indeed likely the motherboard was damaged by
whatever event killed the power supply. If you hear the hard drives spinning
up they are probably ok.
Unfortunately the cpu, memory chips and add-in cards could also have been
damaged.
The power supply may have died a natural death and took the motherboard with
it. However unless you have a surge suppressor of at least intermediate
quality power surges can do this also: I lost two computers several years
ago before I learned that lesson the hard way.

Reinstall the power supply and make sure that all connections are secure and
that cpu, memory and add-in cards are properly seated.
If the computer will not post, if you do not hear a beep and see the BIOS
data on the monitor then it is indeed likely the motherboard was damaged by
whatever event killed the power supply. If you hear the hard drives spinning
up they are probably ok.
Unfortunately the cpu, memory chips and add-in cards could also have been
damaged.
The power supply may have died a natural death and took the motherboard with
it. However unless you have a surge suppressor of at least intermediate
quality power surges can do this also: I lost two computers several years
ago before I learned that lesson the hard way.

bmoag, <apquilts@pacbell.net>, the streptococcal, unsightly cockroach, and
shyster lawyer, pressured:


>> e-machine

> Reinstall the power supply and make sure that all connections are
> secure and that cpu, memory and add-in cards are properly seated.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!




--
Kadaitcha Man replies to Bill Baka's <bbaka@syix.com> multiple death
threats: You make death threats [against me] therefore someone else
has mental issues? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I hope the police blow your
****ing brains out all over the footpath where the dogs like to ****.
Gar'n get ****ed, ya bloody poofter.

bmoag, <apquilts@pacbell.net>, the streptococcal, unsightly cockroach, and
shyster lawyer, pressured:


>> e-machine

> Reinstall the power supply and make sure that all connections are
> secure and that cpu, memory and add-in cards are properly seated.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!




--
Kadaitcha Man replies to Bill Baka's <bbaka@syix.com> multiple death
threats: You make death threats [against me] therefore someone else
has mental issues? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I hope the police blow your
****ing brains out all over the footpath where the dogs like to ****.
Gar'n get ****ed, ya bloody poofter.

Kadaitcha Man's victory over illiteracy was shortlived, but Kadaitcha
Man, ever determined to seize the moment, enlightened us with this
exquisite little pearler . . .
>> bmoag, <apquilts@pacbell.net>, the streptococcal, unsightly
>> cockroach, and shyster lawyer, pressured:
>>
>>
>>>> e-machine
>>
>>> Reinstall the power supply and make sure that all connections are
>>> secure and that cpu, memory and add-in cards are properly seated.
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kadaitcha Man replies to Bill Baka's <bbaka@syix.com> multiple death
>> threats: You make death threats [against me] therefore someone else
>> has mental issues? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I hope the police blow your
>> ****ing brains out all over the footpath where the dogs like to ****.
>> Gar'n get ****ed, ya bloody poofter.


Have you had death threats on usenet ?
There sure are some psychos out there aren't there
here's some information for you and the police do take cyberstalking
seriously

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Stalking is commonly defined as the act of frequently giving unwanted
attention to a person with the intention of intimidating them or causing
them to fear for their safety or the safety of others. Cyber-stalking is
commonly executed using electronic mail.

It is an offence for a person to knowingly or recklessly use a carriage
service supplied by a carrier to menace or harass another person or to use a
carriage service supplied by a carrier in such a way as would be regarded by
reasonable persons as being, in all the circumstances, offensive.(25)

Any conduct which could reasonably be likely to arouse an apprehension of
fear in the victim is an offence.(26) Accordingly, sending email or posting
messages on interactive internet forums such as bulletin boards or chat
rooms may constitute stalking.

An intervention order is the most common remedy for stalking. Breach of an
intervention order may result in imprisonment.

7. Attempt, Incitement, Complicity and Common Purpose

Attempt, Incitement and Complicity and Common Purpose are offences which are
relevant to cyberspace crime.

(a) Attempt

In all Australian jurisdictions there are laws which establish that attempts
to commit certain offences are themselves offences.(27) To be guilty of an
attempt, the offender must intend to commit the offence and take steps which
go beyond mere preparation in pursuance of their intention.

An offender may be criminally liable for an attempt even though
circumstances unknown to them make it impossible for them to complete the
offence.

The penalty which applies to a person for attempt differs between
jurisdictions.

(b) Incitement

A person who incites another person to commit an offence may themselves be
guilty of a criminal offence, even if the offence incited is not committed.
Inciting may involve urging, requesting, authorising or encouraging the
commission of an offence.

For example, under the Commonwealth Criminal Code a person who urges the
commission of an offence is guilty of incitement if the person intends that
the offence incited be committed.(28) The person may be guilty even if the
offence incited is impossible.

Any mode of encouragement can be used to incite an offence. Accordingly, a
person may, for example, incite another person to commit an offence by
publishing a notice on a site that urges, requests or encourages others to
commit a crime or doing the same by email.

The maximum penalty for incitement depends upon the maximum penalty for the
offence incited. The precise elements of the offence of incitement, and the
applicable penalties, vary between jurisdictions.(29)

(c) Complicity and Common Purpose

In all Australian jurisdictions the law provides that a person who directly
or indirectly participates in the commission of an offence, with the
requisite mental element and without a relevant defence, is guilty of that
offence.(30)

The Australian Capital Territory Crimes Act, for example, states that a
person who aids, abets, counsels or procures, or by act or omission is in
any way directly or indirectly knowingly concerned in, or party to, the
commission of an offence shall be deemed to have committed that offence and
shall be punishable, on conviction, accordingly.(31)

A person's presence at the scene while an offence is being committed may
amount to aiding or abetting if, in the circumstances of the case, that
person's conduct encourages or assists the principal offender to commit the
offence.


13.1 Section 562AB of the Crimes Act provides that it is an offence to stalk
or intimidate another person:

A person who stalks or intimidates another person with the intention of
causing the person to fear physical or mental harm is liable to imprisonment
for 5 years, or to a fine of 50 penalty units, or both.*1 .
13.2 Since the offence is contained in Part 15A, it is necessary for this
review to determine whether these provisions remain appropriate for securing
the policy objectives of the Part. The policy objectives are to ensure the
safety and protection of all people who experience violence, and to reduce
and prevent violence.*2 .
13.3 Stalking has only been recognised as a criminal offence relatively
recently. All Australian jurisdictions enacted anti-stalking legislation
between 1993 and 1996,*3 . and there is similar legislation in the United
States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada and New Zealand.*4 . The
widespread enactment of anti-stalking legislation aimed to fill a perceived
gap in the law. Previously, people who were subjected to persistent unwanted
attention had no legal remedy if the behaviour in question was not in itself
criminal.

13.4 The stalking and intimidation offence was inserted into the Crimes Act
in 1993.*5 . It was introduced in the context of domestic violence, and
originally only applied to people who were in a domestic relationship. In
1994 this limitation was removed, recognising that stalking and intimidation
can occur regardless of whether or not the parties are in a domestic
relationship.*6 . In 1999, the offence was expanded again. Previously, the
offender had to cause fear of "personal injury", which failed to recognise
that stalking, as an expression of power and control, may not aim to arouse
fear of physical violence.*7 . As amended, it is an offence to cause fear of
"physical or mental harm".*8 .

13.5 Anti-stalking legislation is inherently difficult to draft.*9 . The
offence is by nature imprecise, as behaviour which is otherwise considered
quite ordinary becomes threatening in context: "the difficulty in defining
stalking as a concept lies in its paradoxical status as an act that is
ambiguously located somewhere between crime and conformity".*10 . While
stalking is qualitatively different from the legitimate pursuit of a love
interest, it is difficult to clarify at what point the behaviour warrants
criminal sanction.*11 . Because of this inherent imprecision, it is
difficult to set clear parameters in the legislation.

13.6 There is significant overlap between AVOs and stalking and
intimidation. The same conduct may give rise to an offence of stalking and
intimidation and also constitute grounds for an AVO. Both deal with action
which may not be criminal in isolation but, in context, could be serious
enough to warrant legal intervention. A court can grant an AVO where the
person seeking protection has reasonable grounds to fear, and in fact fears,
harassment, molestation, intimidation or stalking, sufficient to warrant the
making of the order.*12 . The AVO provides a means of stopping the offending
behaviour, as it prohibits the defendant from stalking or engaging in
conduct that intimidates the protected person.*13 . If a person is charged
with stalking or intimidation, the court must make an interim AVO for the
protection of the alleged victim.*14 . A final order is made if the accused
is found guilty.*15 . The Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research has found
that AVOs are very effective in preventing stalking.*16 .





INCIDENCE OF STALKING AND INTIMIDATION

13.7 Stalking and intimidation occurs at a reasonably high rate.*17 .
Perpetrators are more often men and victims are more often women. The
parties may be intimates, former intimates, acquaintances or strangers. In a
majority of cases, the perpetrator is somebody known to the victim. Motives
for offending vary - the offender may wish to initiate or renew a
relationship, or may wish to control or instil fear in the victim. While
some stalkers may be psychotic or delusional, most are not. Stalking and
intimidation is clearly linked to domestic violence, as associated violence
is more likely to occur between intimates than between strangers or
acquaintances. Intimates or former intimates are more likely to be
threatened or assaulted or have their property damaged, and also experience
stalking-type behaviour of a longer duration and wider variety.*18 .

13.8 The number of convictions under section 562AB has steadily increased
since the offence was introduced in 1993.*19 .





ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE

13.9 It is an offence to stalk or intimidate a person with the intention of
causing fear of physical or mental harm. The offence includes causing a
person to fear harm to another person with whom he or she has a domestic
relationship.*20 . For example, conduct which causes a person to fear for
the safety of his or her child is covered.

13.10 In deciding whether a person's conduct amounts to intimidation, the
court can have regard to any pattern of violence in the person's behaviour,
especially violence constituting a domestic violence offence.*21 .
Relationship evidence is also admissible in order to determine whether the
conduct in question was likely to cause fear. Such evidence puts the conduct
in question "into a true and realistic context, in order to assist the jury
to appreciate the full significance of what would otherwise appear to be an
isolated act".*22 .





Actus reus - what type of behaviour is covered?

13.11 The legislation outlines the types of behaviour which may constitute
stalking or intimidation. "Stalking" is defined as:

the following of a person about or the watching or frequenting of the
vicinity of or an approach to a person's place of residence, business or
work or any place that a person frequents for the purposes of any social or
leisure activity.
13.12 "Intimidation" is broader, and more open ended. It means:
(a) conduct amounting to harassment or molestation, or
(b) the making of repeated telephone calls, or

(c) any conduct that causes a reasonable apprehension of injury to a
person or to a person with whom he or she has a domestic relationship, or of
violence or damage to any person or property.

13.13 Intimidation could therefore include keeping a person under
surveillance, driving past a person's house, interfering with a person's
property or sending unwanted emails, letters, faxes, unsolicited gifts or
offensive material. Cyberstalking would also fall within the definition of
intimidation.*23 .




Mens rea - the intention to cause fear of harm

13.14 The offender must intend to cause the other person to fear physical or
mental harm. To prove the requisite intent, the prosecution must satisfy the
court beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knows the conduct is likely
to cause fear in the other person. It is not necessary to prove the victim
actually feared physical or mental harm.

13.15 Some jurisdictions require proof of an intention to cause fear or
apprehension.*24 . This has proved to be a significant barrier to
prosecution, and as a result there has been a shift towards more objective
tests which focus on whether offenders should have known that their
behaviour would cause fear.*25 . In NSW, there is no need to prove that the
accused subjectively intended to cause fear, only that the accused knew that
the behaviour in question was likely to cause fear.

13.16 One area of potential ambiguity is where the accused did not intend
the victim to find out about the conduct in question, for example where a
stalker secretly keeps a victim under surveillance. Arguably, such
activities may fall outside the scope of the offence, if they are not
"likely" to cause fear.*26 . Another area of ambiguity is where the
behaviour is directed at more than one person. For example, if a person
regularly follows different people about, and does not target the same
victim more than once, does this constitute stalking?*27 .

13.17 The mental state of the accused is also significant.*28 . Some
stalkers suffer from psychiatric disabilities or mental illnesses, which may
result in delusional episodes and reduce their legal culpability.*29 . Where
the accused has a mental illness, criminal prosecution may be inappropriate.
It is less clear cut where the accused has a personality disorder, or
emotional or behavioural problems. Indeed, many stalkers act irrationally,
and demonstrate little understanding of the effect of their behaviour. It is
worth noting, however, that most offenders are not psychotic or
delusional.*30 .





Defences and exclusions

13.18 Other jurisdictions exclude certain conduct from the scope of their
legislation. For example, in Queensland, stalking does not include acts done
for a lawful purpose, acts done for the purpose of an industrial, political
or other public dispute, reasonable conduct engaged in for the person's
trade, business or occupation, or reasonable conduct to obtain or give
information that the person has a legitimate interest in obtaining or
giving.*31 . In Tasmania and Victoria, it is not an offence if the person is
performing his or her official duties,*32 . while in Western Australia, it
is a defence that the accused acted with lawful authority or reasonable
excuse.*33 . This ensures that legitimate activity is not inadvertently
brought within the scope of the offence. There are no statutory defences or
exclusions in NSW.


Issue 26
How effective are the stalking and intimidation provisions in Part 15A
in protecting people against acts or threats of violence?
Is the requisite intent, that the behaviour in question be "likely to
cause fear of physical or mental harm", appropriate?

Should the legislation include any defences or exclusions?






HARASSMENT CAUSING DISTRESS OR DETRIMENT
13.19 The requirement that the offender cause "fear of physical or mental
harm" creates an important threshold, ensuring that behaviour which is
merely irritating or annoying remains outside the scope of the offence.

13.20 However, persistent unwanted attention may have a significant impact
on a person's life, although no fear of harm is caused. A recent Australian
study reported that "a majority of victims (63%) modified their lifestyle in
response to the stalking behaviours",*34 . concluding that "most victims
report significant disruption to their daily functioning irrespective of
exposure to associated violence".*35 . Victims took measures such as
increasing their home security, changing their telephone number or screening
their calls or, in more serious cases, moving house or changing jobs. The
unwanted attention also restricted their social activity and led to
increased work absenteeism. Arguably the statutory focus on causing "fear of
physical or mental harm" does not recognise the effect that stalking and
intimidation have on the victim's enjoyment of life.

13.21 For this reason, some jurisdictions include behaviour causing
detriment or distress, as well as behaviour causing fear. For example, under
the Queensland model, unlawful stalking includes conduct that "causes
detriment, reasonably arising in all the circumstances, to the stalked
person or another person."*36 . "Detriment" includes prevention or hindrance
from doing an act a person is lawfully entitled to do, for example where a
person changes the route or form of transport he or she would ordinarily use
to travel to work. It also includes compulsion to do an act a person is
lawfully entitled to abstain from doing, for example where a person feels
compelled to sell a property he or she would otherwise not sell.*37 .

13.22 However, it is important that the threshold is not too low, otherwise
behaviour which is merely irritating may be criminalised inadvertently.
Indeed, legislation in some jurisdictions has been criticised for being too
broad or too uncertain. The Victorian legislation is reportedly being used
to deal with neighbourhood disputes, noise complaints, road rage and
disputes between school children, prompting concern that "the definition of
stalking is increasingly being widened through dealing with situations that
originally may have been outside the scope of the current legislation".*38 .
The United Kingdom model has also been criticised for its breadth and
uncertainty. Although it was enacted to address stalking-type behaviour, it
prohibits any "course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another".*39
.. The summary offence of harassment includes causing alarm or distress, and
does not require the victim to have been put in fear.*40 . This captures a
much wider range of behaviour than the Australian legislation, and is
reportedly being used far more widely than was intended, for a variety of
behaviour including low level harassment and neighbourhood disputes relating
to property or money.*41 .
--
Note to self, self
when you get around to it
your sig file goes here

Kadaitcha Man's victory over illiteracy was shortlived, but Kadaitcha
Man, ever determined to seize the moment, enlightened us with this
exquisite little pearler . . .
>> bmoag, <apquilts@pacbell.net>, the streptococcal, unsightly
>> cockroach, and shyster lawyer, pressured:
>>
>>
>>>> e-machine
>>
>>> Reinstall the power supply and make sure that all connections are
>>> secure and that cpu, memory and add-in cards are properly seated.
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kadaitcha Man replies to Bill Baka's <bbaka@syix.com> multiple death
>> threats: You make death threats [against me] therefore someone else
>> has mental issues? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I hope the police blow your
>> ****ing brains out all over the footpath where the dogs like to ****.
>> Gar'n get ****ed, ya bloody poofter.


Have you had death threats on usenet ?
There sure are some psychos out there aren't there
here's some information for you and the police do take cyberstalking
seriously

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Stalking is commonly defined as the act of frequently giving unwanted
attention to a person with the intention of intimidating them or causing
them to fear for their safety or the safety of others. Cyber-stalking is
commonly executed using electronic mail.

It is an offence for a person to knowingly or recklessly use a carriage
service supplied by a carrier to menace or harass another person or to use a
carriage service supplied by a carrier in such a way as would be regarded by
reasonable persons as being, in all the circumstances, offensive.(25)

Any conduct which could reasonably be likely to arouse an apprehension of
fear in the victim is an offence.(26) Accordingly, sending email or posting
messages on interactive internet forums such as bulletin boards or chat
rooms may constitute stalking.

An intervention order is the most common remedy for stalking. Breach of an
intervention order may result in imprisonment.

7. Attempt, Incitement, Complicity and Common Purpose

Attempt, Incitement and Complicity and Common Purpose are offences which are
relevant to cyberspace crime.

(a) Attempt

In all Australian jurisdictions there are laws which establish that attempts
to commit certain offences are themselves offences.(27) To be guilty of an
attempt, the offender must intend to commit the offence and take steps which
go beyond mere preparation in pursuance of their intention.

An offender may be criminally liable for an attempt even though
circumstances unknown to them make it impossible for them to complete the
offence.

The penalty which applies to a person for attempt differs between
jurisdictions.

(b) Incitement

A person who incites another person to commit an offence may themselves be
guilty of a criminal offence, even if the offence incited is not committed.
Inciting may involve urging, requesting, authorising or encouraging the
commission of an offence.

For example, under the Commonwealth Criminal Code a person who urges the
commission of an offence is guilty of incitement if the person intends that
the offence incited be committed.(28) The person may be guilty even if the
offence incited is impossible.

Any mode of encouragement can be used to incite an offence. Accordingly, a
person may, for example, incite another person to commit an offence by
publishing a notice on a site that urges, requests or encourages others to
commit a crime or doing the same by email.

The maximum penalty for incitement depends upon the maximum penalty for the
offence incited. The precise elements of the offence of incitement, and the
applicable penalties, vary between jurisdictions.(29)

(c) Complicity and Common Purpose

In all Australian jurisdictions the law provides that a person who directly
or indirectly participates in the commission of an offence, with the
requisite mental element and without a relevant defence, is guilty of that
offence.(30)

The Australian Capital Territory Crimes Act, for example, states that a
person who aids, abets, counsels or procures, or by act or omission is in
any way directly or indirectly knowingly concerned in, or party to, the
commission of an offence shall be deemed to have committed that offence and
shall be punishable, on conviction, accordingly.(31)

A person's presence at the scene while an offence is being committed may
amount to aiding or abetting if, in the circumstances of the case, that
person's conduct encourages or assists the principal offender to commit the
offence.


13.1 Section 562AB of the Crimes Act provides that it is an offence to stalk
or intimidate another person:

A person who stalks or intimidates another person with the intention of
causing the person to fear physical or mental harm is liable to imprisonment
for 5 years, or to a fine of 50 penalty units, or both.*1 .
13.2 Since the offence is contained in Part 15A, it is necessary for this
review to determine whether these provisions remain appropriate for securing
the policy objectives of the Part. The policy objectives are to ensure the
safety and protection of all people who experience violence, and to reduce
and prevent violence.*2 .
13.3 Stalking has only been recognised as a criminal offence relatively
recently. All Australian jurisdictions enacted anti-stalking legislation
between 1993 and 1996,*3 . and there is similar legislation in the United
States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada and New Zealand.*4 . The
widespread enactment of anti-stalking legislation aimed to fill a perceived
gap in the law. Previously, people who were subjected to persistent unwanted
attention had no legal remedy if the behaviour in question was not in itself
criminal.

13.4 The stalking and intimidation offence was inserted into the Crimes Act
in 1993.*5 . It was introduced in the context of domestic violence, and
originally only applied to people who were in a domestic relationship. In
1994 this limitation was removed, recognising that stalking and intimidation
can occur regardless of whether or not the parties are in a domestic
relationship.*6 . In 1999, the offence was expanded again. Previously, the
offender had to cause fear of "personal injury", which failed to recognise
that stalking, as an expression of power and control, may not aim to arouse
fear of physical violence.*7 . As amended, it is an offence to cause fear of
"physical or mental harm".*8 .

13.5 Anti-stalking legislation is inherently difficult to draft.*9 . The
offence is by nature imprecise, as behaviour which is otherwise considered
quite ordinary becomes threatening in context: "the difficulty in defining
stalking as a concept lies in its paradoxical status as an act that is
ambiguously located somewhere between crime and conformity".*10 . While
stalking is qualitatively different from the legitimate pursuit of a love
interest, it is difficult to clarify at what point the behaviour warrants
criminal sanction.*11 . Because of this inherent imprecision, it is
difficult to set clear parameters in the legislation.

13.6 There is significant overlap between AVOs and stalking and
intimidation. The same conduct may give rise to an offence of stalking and
intimidation and also constitute grounds for an AVO. Both deal with action
which may not be criminal in isolation but, in context, could be serious
enough to warrant legal intervention. A court can grant an AVO where the
person seeking protection has reasonable grounds to fear, and in fact fears,
harassment, molestation, intimidation or stalking, sufficient to warrant the
making of the order.*12 . The AVO provides a means of stopping the offending
behaviour, as it prohibits the defendant from stalking or engaging in
conduct that intimidates the protected person.*13 . If a person is charged
with stalking or intimidation, the court must make an interim AVO for the
protection of the alleged victim.*14 . A final order is made if the accused
is found guilty.*15 . The Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research has found
that AVOs are very effective in preventing stalking.*16 .





INCIDENCE OF STALKING AND INTIMIDATION

13.7 Stalking and intimidation occurs at a reasonably high rate.*17 .
Perpetrators are more often men and victims are more often women. The
parties may be intimates, former intimates, acquaintances or strangers. In a
majority of cases, the perpetrator is somebody known to the victim. Motives
for offending vary - the offender may wish to initiate or renew a
relationship, or may wish to control or instil fear in the victim. While
some stalkers may be psychotic or delusional, most are not. Stalking and
intimidation is clearly linked to domestic violence, as associated violence
is more likely to occur between intimates than between strangers or
acquaintances. Intimates or former intimates are more likely to be
threatened or assaulted or have their property damaged, and also experience
stalking-type behaviour of a longer duration and wider variety.*18 .

13.8 The number of convictions under section 562AB has steadily increased
since the offence was introduced in 1993.*19 .





ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE

13.9 It is an offence to stalk or intimidate a person with the intention of
causing fear of physical or mental harm. The offence includes causing a
person to fear harm to another person with whom he or she has a domestic
relationship.*20 . For example, conduct which causes a person to fear for
the safety of his or her child is covered.

13.10 In deciding whether a person's conduct amounts to intimidation, the
court can have regard to any pattern of violence in the person's behaviour,
especially violence constituting a domestic violence offence.*21 .
Relationship evidence is also admissible in order to determine whether the
conduct in question was likely to cause fear. Such evidence puts the conduct
in question "into a true and realistic context, in order to assist the jury
to appreciate the full significance of what would otherwise appear to be an
isolated act".*22 .





Actus reus - what type of behaviour is covered?

13.11 The legislation outlines the types of behaviour which may constitute
stalking or intimidation. "Stalking" is defined as:

the following of a person about or the watching or frequenting of the
vicinity of or an approach to a person's place of residence, business or
work or any place that a person frequents for the purposes of any social or
leisure activity.
13.12 "Intimidation" is broader, and more open ended. It means:
(a) conduct amounting to harassment or molestation, or
(b) the making of repeated telephone calls, or

(c) any conduct that causes a reasonable apprehension of injury to a
person or to a person with whom he or she has a domestic relationship, or of
violence or damage to any person or property.

13.13 Intimidation could therefore include keeping a person under
surveillance, driving past a person's house, interfering with a person's
property or sending unwanted emails, letters, faxes, unsolicited gifts or
offensive material. Cyberstalking would also fall within the definition of
intimidation.*23 .




Mens rea - the intention to cause fear of harm

13.14 The offender must intend to cause the other person to fear physical or
mental harm. To prove the requisite intent, the prosecution must satisfy the
court beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knows the conduct is likely
to cause fear in the other person. It is not necessary to prove the victim
actually feared physical or mental harm.

13.15 Some jurisdictions require proof of an intention to cause fear or
apprehension.*24 . This has proved to be a significant barrier to
prosecution, and as a result there has been a shift towards more objective
tests which focus on whether offenders should have known that their
behaviour would cause fear.*25 . In NSW, there is no need to prove that the
accused subjectively intended to cause fear, only that the accused knew that
the behaviour in question was likely to cause fear.

13.16 One area of potential ambiguity is where the accused did not intend
the victim to find out about the conduct in question, for example where a
stalker secretly keeps a victim under surveillance. Arguably, such
activities may fall outside the scope of the offence, if they are not
"likely" to cause fear.*26 . Another area of ambiguity is where the
behaviour is directed at more than one person. For example, if a person
regularly follows different people about, and does not target the same
victim more than once, does this constitute stalking?*27 .

13.17 The mental state of the accused is also significant.*28 . Some
stalkers suffer from psychiatric disabilities or mental illnesses, which may
result in delusional episodes and reduce their legal culpability.*29 . Where
the accused has a mental illness, criminal prosecution may be inappropriate.
It is less clear cut where the accused has a personality disorder, or
emotional or behavioural problems. Indeed, many stalkers act irrationally,
and demonstrate little understanding of the effect of their behaviour. It is
worth noting, however, that most offenders are not psychotic or
delusional.*30 .





Defences and exclusions

13.18 Other jurisdictions exclude certain conduct from the scope of their
legislation. For example, in Queensland, stalking does not include acts done
for a lawful purpose, acts done for the purpose of an industrial, political
or other public dispute, reasonable conduct engaged in for the person's
trade, business or occupation, or reasonable conduct to obtain or give
information that the person has a legitimate interest in obtaining or
giving.*31 . In Tasmania and Victoria, it is not an offence if the person is
performing his or her official duties,*32 . while in Western Australia, it
is a defence that the accused acted with lawful authority or reasonable
excuse.*33 . This ensures that legitimate activity is not inadvertently
brought within the scope of the offence. There are no statutory defences or
exclusions in NSW.


Issue 26
How effective are the stalking and intimidation provisions in Part 15A
in protecting people against acts or threats of violence?
Is the requisite intent, that the behaviour in question be "likely to
cause fear of physical or mental harm", appropriate?

Should the legislation include any defences or exclusions?






HARASSMENT CAUSING DISTRESS OR DETRIMENT
13.19 The requirement that the offender cause "fear of physical or mental
harm" creates an important threshold, ensuring that behaviour which is
merely irritating or annoying remains outside the scope of the offence.

13.20 However, persistent unwanted attention may have a significant impact
on a person's life, although no fear of harm is caused. A recent Australian
study reported that "a majority of victims (63%) modified their lifestyle in
response to the stalking behaviours",*34 . concluding that "most victims
report significant disruption to their daily functioning irrespective of
exposure to associated violence".*35 . Victims took measures such as
increasing their home security, changing their telephone number or screening
their calls or, in more serious cases, moving house or changing jobs. The
unwanted attention also restricted their social activity and led to
increased work absenteeism. Arguably the statutory focus on causing "fear of
physical or mental harm" does not recognise the effect that stalking and
intimidation have on the victim's enjoyment of life.

13.21 For this reason, some jurisdictions include behaviour causing
detriment or distress, as well as behaviour causing fear. For example, under
the Queensland model, unlawful stalking includes conduct that "causes
detriment, reasonably arising in all the circumstances, to the stalked
person or another person."*36 . "Detriment" includes prevention or hindrance
from doing an act a person is lawfully entitled to do, for example where a
person changes the route or form of transport he or she would ordinarily use
to travel to work. It also includes compulsion to do an act a person is
lawfully entitled to abstain from doing, for example where a person feels
compelled to sell a property he or she would otherwise not sell.*37 .

13.22 However, it is important that the threshold is not too low, otherwise
behaviour which is merely irritating may be criminalised inadvertently.
Indeed, legislation in some jurisdictions has been criticised for being too
broad or too uncertain. The Victorian legislation is reportedly being used
to deal with neighbourhood disputes, noise complaints, road rage and
disputes between school children, prompting concern that "the definition of
stalking is increasingly being widened through dealing with situations that
originally may have been outside the scope of the current legislation".*38 .
The United Kingdom model has also been criticised for its breadth and
uncertainty. Although it was enacted to address stalking-type behaviour, it
prohibits any "course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another".*39
.. The summary offence of harassment includes causing alarm or distress, and
does not require the victim to have been put in fear.*40 . This captures a
much wider range of behaviour than the Australian legislation, and is
reportedly being used far more widely than was intended, for a variety of
behaviour including low level harassment and neighbourhood disputes relating
to property or money.*41 .
--
Note to self, self
when you get around to it
your sig file goes here

Brand-X, <Bland-X********.com>, the open-headed, febrile chimp, and
assistant to the shot firer in the pits, aired:

> Kadaitcha Man's victory over illiteracy was shortlived, but Kadaitcha
> Man, ever determined to seize the moment, enlightened us with this
> exquisite little pearler . . .

>>> Kadaitcha Man replies to Bill Baka's <bbaka@syix.com> multiple death
>>> threats: You make death threats [against me] therefore someone else
>>> has mental issues? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I hope the police blow your
>>> ****ing brains out all over the footpath where the dogs like to
>>> ****. Gar'n get ****ed, ya bloody poofter.
>
>
> Have you had death threats on usenet ?

That's a joke, right? I get several threats a week and collect on average
two, and sometimes five, stalkers a week. The death threats are interspersed
amongst innumerable threats of "I will find you and fix you," or more
recently, two from this week alone, "I will find you and put a stop to
this", and "I will find you and kick your teeth in."

Here are some of my encounters with stalkers and nutters:
http://peanut-gallery.kadaitcha.cx/foremerly.html
http://peanut-gallery.kadaitcha.cx/ravingmad.html
http://peanut-gallery.kadaitcha.cx/nemesis.html

Main page: http://peanut-gallery.kadaitcha.cx/main.html
Complaints page: http://peanut-gallery.kadaitcha.cx/index.html

I seem to have a knack for locating and pressing the netloon button.




--
Kadaitcha Man replies to Bill Baka's <bbaka@syix.com> multiple death
threats: You make death threats [against me] therefore someone else
has mental issues? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I hope the police blow your
****ing brains out all over the footpath where the dogs like to ****.
Gar'n get ****ed, ya bloody poofter.

Brand-X, <Bland-X********.com>, the open-headed, febrile chimp, and
assistant to the shot firer in the pits, aired:

> Kadaitcha Man's victory over illiteracy was shortlived, but Kadaitcha
> Man, ever determined to seize the moment, enlightened us with this
> exquisite little pearler . . .

>>> Kadaitcha Man replies to Bill Baka's <bbaka@syix.com> multiple death
>>> threats: You make death threats [against me] therefore someone else
>>> has mental issues? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I hope the police blow your
>>> ****ing brains out all over the footpath where the dogs like to
>>> ****. Gar'n get ****ed, ya bloody poofter.
>
>
> Have you had death threats on usenet ?

That's a joke, right? I get several threats a week and collect on average
two, and sometimes five, stalkers a week. The death threats are interspersed
amongst innumerable threats of "I will find you and fix you," or more
recently, two from this week alone, "I will find you and put a stop to
this", and "I will find you and kick your teeth in."

Here are some of my encounters with stalkers and nutters:
http://peanut-gallery.kadaitcha.cx/foremerly.html
http://peanut-gallery.kadaitcha.cx/ravingmad.html
http://peanut-gallery.kadaitcha.cx/nemesis.html

Main page: http://peanut-gallery.kadaitcha.cx/main.html
Complaints page: http://peanut-gallery.kadaitcha.cx/index.html

I seem to have a knack for locating and pressing the netloon button.




--
Kadaitcha Man replies to Bill Baka's <bbaka@syix.com> multiple death
threats: You make death threats [against me] therefore someone else
has mental issues? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I hope the police blow your
****ing brains out all over the footpath where the dogs like to ****.
Gar'n get ****ed, ya bloody poofter.