Sue, wife of a detective named Peter, was stalked and harassed by Robert, a man who had previously delivered landscaping materials to their home. Robert made threatening phone calls to Sue, including threats of rape, timed when Peter was not home. The harassment caused Sue significant distress, contributing to a miscarriage during her pregnancy. Peter, a police officer, investigated the calls, traced them to Robert's girlfriend's house, and eventually arrested Robert. Robert pleaded guilty to charges under the Telecommunications Act and was sentenced to six months in jail, which he later appealed.
Country: Australia
State/Province: New South Wales, Australia
City/Region: Penrith
Incident Type: Non-Murder
Relationship Status: Married
Relationship Duration: Approximately 1 year (marriage at time of incident)
Incident Date: None
Relationship Origins:
Relationship Stages:
Contributing Factors:
Red Flags:
Motives:
Relationship Outcomes:
How the relationship or connection began.
Approximately 1 year (marriage at time of incident)
Important relationship phases recorded for this case.
Reported red flags or early concern points.
Contributing factors and possible motives from the available sources.
Recorded relationship or case outcome.
English labels are shown first. Original-language titles are preserved for source verification.
LiSTNR Crime · Original language: English
Stalking and harassment of detective's wife
Stalking / Harassment
The case involves stalking and harassment of a married woman by a man who had prior contact through a business transaction. The perpetrator used knowledge of the husband's work schedule to time threatening calls, causing significant emotional distress and physical harm to the victim. The harassment was intermittent but persistent, demonstrating an escalation pattern typical of stalking behavior.
Investigation leveraged police resources including phone surveillance and tracking. The suspect was identified through calls made from his girlfriend's residence. Charges were limited to telecommunications offenses due to the nature of evidence. The suspect pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months jail, later appealing the sentence.
Initial lack of connection between the suspect and the victim delayed identification. Calls were made from a third party's residence, complicating tracing. No direct evidence of physical assault was reported, limiting charges to phone misuse.
Peter and Sue were married in 1985; harassment began around 1986 after Robert delivered landscaping materials. Robert made threatening calls timed to Peter's police shifts, causing Sue distress and miscarriage. Police investigation used phone tapping and interviews to identify Robert. He admitted guilt and was charged under telecommunications law.
High risk due to targeted stalking, threats of sexual violence, and impact on victim's health including miscarriage. The perpetrator's knowledge of victim's routines increased vulnerability.
Stalking can escalate from seemingly minor contact such as business transactions. Knowledge of victim's routines can be exploited. Emotional distress from harassment can have severe physical health consequences. Police involvement can aid in identification and prosecution, though legal charges may be limited by evidence type.
Repeated threatening phone calls timed to husband's absence and knowledge of victim's presence.
Phone call timing, tracing calls to suspect's girlfriend's house, suspect's prior contact delivering materials.
Phone surveillance and listening device recordings, suspect's admissions during police interviews.
Not reported.
No follow-up reports available beyond sentencing and appeal mention.
Exact timeline of harassment duration and full impact on victim's health remain unclear.