A High Court injunction has been granted to a law firm after anonymous, “obscene and criminal” calls were directed at its female staff members.
The troubling events unfolded when four employees of a law firm received disturbing calls over a short span of 21 minutes. The High Court heard that these calls contained sexually explicit and abusive language, leading the law firm to seek legal protection.
Mrs Justice Hill was presented with evidence suggesting that Dr Sean Stimson was behind these calls, linked to an ongoing dispute over his aunt’s will. This dispute arose after the aunt’s will, made in 2016, left her estate to various charities, excluding Dr Stimson.
In one chilling instance, a recipient of the calls reported the caller’s intent to commit sexual violence, although the exact words were not clearly remembered. One of the women recognised the caller’s voice, having transcribed numerous voicemails from Dr Stimson previously. The other recipients, although not directly familiar with him, identified the voice as potentially being his after reviewing the voicemails.
The allegations against Dr Stimson extend beyond the calls. He was accused of making threats to confront staff and clients of the law firm and claimed in emails to have purchased domain names of the law firm and its associated charities. Given his background in IT security, these threats were taken seriously. The concern increased with the potential of spreading malware in their IT systems.
The legal approach, formulated under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, was described by Mrs Justice Hill as carefully tailored. The injunction does not bar Dr Stimson from communicating with the firm regarding legitimate concerns but restricts specific behaviours perceived as harassing or harmful. This includes unapproved visits, organising others to attend similarly, abusive communications, and any misuse of technology or misleading domain names.
Despite granting the injunction, Justice Hill clarified that this legal measure was proportionate and not excessive. The firm’s likelihood of proving harassment by Dr Stimson in efforts to influence the execution of the will was acknowledged.
Dr Stimson’s absence from the hearing was noted, with the court assuming it was a deliberate choice.
The High Court’s decision to issue an injunction against Dr Stimson underscores the seriousness of harassment in professional settings, particularly when it threatens operational integrity and personal safety.
