Sana Musharraf v R

Sana Musharraf v R

Complaints made to an employer and regulator can amount to acts associated with stalking if they are false and malicious, forming part of a course of conduct causing distress; the judge's directions were sufficient and the conviction was safe; restraining order required minor amendments for clarity and proportionality.

Parties
Appellant: Sana Musharraf; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Stalking, Harassment, Restraining Orders, Appeal Against Conviction, Appeal Against Sentence
Criminal Law Stalking Harassment Restraining Orders Appeal Against Conviction Appeal Against Sentence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sana Musharraf

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether complaints to employer and regulator can amount to acts associated with stalking under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether the jury was properly directed on the meaning of 'course of conduct' and 'substantial adverse effect'
  3. 3 Whether the restraining order was excessively wide and imprecise

Ratio Decidendi

Complaints made to an employer and regulator can amount to acts associated with stalking if they are false and malicious, forming part of a course of conduct causing distress; the judge's directions were sufficient and the conviction was safe; restraining order required minor amendments for clarity and proportionality.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part.

Orders

  • Conviction on count 1 upheld.
  • Restraining order to be amended to allow response to fresh communications from institutions, provided responses are not copied to third parties except legal professionals.