A man charged with stalking a woman on five separate occasions was found not guilty in Magistrates' Court on Friday.

Dwight Hatherley, 34, of Paget was discharged after Magistrate Archibald Warner gave his judgment stating that the facts of the case could not support a conviction for stalking as set out in the Stalking Act of 1997.

He said that the case boiled down to one person's word against the other as only the defendant and the complainant testified. Mr. Warner said he was entitled to observe the demeanour of the witnesses and noted that he found the defendant to be straightforward while the complainant's conduct on the stand had caused him concern.

He said: "It is understandable that a witness may be nervous in court, but...I find that the complainant's behaviour bordered on neurotic.'' He observed that she was easily moved to tears, was unclear on vital points and was generally an unconvincing witness.

In spite of these things, Mr. Warner pointed out that he was bound to decide the matter on the facts and the law.

The defendant had denied speaking to the complainant on the first two of the five occassions which allegedly occurred at a nursery school in Warwick.

"Based on all of the evidence, I am not sure that the conduct did occur. Even if it did occur, these activities even considered together do not constitute `stalking' or `following' as outlined in the Act,'' said Mr. Warner.

In the third incident, the complainant alleged that she was sunbathing at Elbow Beach when the defendant appeared. Mr. Warner commented that it was not unusual that the complainant and the defendant would be at the beach on a warm, sunny day.

The defendant admitted speaking to the complainant, but said that she told him she was not interested in talking to him. But Mr. Warner felt that the complainant had exaggerated how long Mr. Hatherley had remained with her, stating that the complainant had first said he was not there very long and then said that she asked him to leave several times.

Mr. Warner commented that he found that on cross-examination the complainant was evasive, saying that she couldn't remember if she told the defendant she would call the Police.

The Magistrate said: "This is the first example of the unreliability of the victim's evidence.'' Mr. Warner went on to say that the tone of the victim's evidence was that the defendant was "hitting on'' her and that this does not constitute a criminal offence. "He may have been bothering her when she wasn't interested but this was not tantamount to `stalking'.'' The complainant told the court during the trial that her home had been broken into the night of the first Elbow Beach incident by a man fitting the defendant's description. This was not addressed by the Magistrate in his judgment.

The fourth incident took place at the Phoenix Store in Hamilton on Christmas Eve. The complainant was there with her daughter and the defendant was at the store with his son when an alleged confrontation took place.

Mr. Warner said: "Taken at its highest, and on the victim's evidence alone, it cannot be said that the Phoenix meeting was anything other than a chance meeting.'' The inference was that both adults had attended the store with their children to shop for toys, and that what occurred did not amount to an offence.

The final incident also occurred at Elbow Beach.

The complainant was on the beach sunbathing when she saw the defendant nearby.

There was no exchange between them.

What happened next was in dispute. The complainant said that she left first and drove up to the junction to South Shore and stopped. She said that the defendant then rode up and started harrassing her and continued to do so as she drove along South Shore. The defendant said that he was the one who left the beach first, rode up the hill and then stopped at the junction to make a telephone call.

Mr. Warner said the victim was impeached on cross-examination because she then agreed that it was the defendant who left first and that she drove up and parked next to him while he was on the telephone.

Mr. Warner concluded by saying he was not satisfied that the defendant stalked the victim. He then found the defendant not guilty and acquitted him.