In Brief
A man was accused of wrongfully restraining a woman from entering a property, photographing her without consent, and intimidating her on 18 March 2020. The property was at the centre of a civil ownership dispute between two brothers, with a court order (dating 29 November 2018) directing them to maintain joint possession and prohibiting creation of third-party tenancy. The woman claimed to be a tenant of one brother; no tenancy document was produced. The woman later refused to give evidence. The Supreme Court held that the charges (wrongful restraint, voyeurism, criminal intimidation) had no legal foundation: voyeurism requires a 'private act' with expectation of privacy (not present); criminal intimidation requires specific threats (absent); wrongful restraint requires a legal right of entry (the claimed tenancy violated the subsisting court order). The Court discharged the accused, holding that criminal law must not be weaponised in civil disputes.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.