A man accused of posting threatening messages on social media about a court official has had the charge against him dismissed after it couldn’t be established who sent the messages from the jointly operated Facebook page.

James Hall, of Nelson, defended a charge of causing harm by posting digital communications at a judge-alone trial in Nelson District Court yesterday.

Police alleged he posted “serious to extremely serious” messages on Facebook between January 14 and January 18 this year about a court official.

The messages included a photograph of him and an allegation that he was a “P head”. He told the court they had “crushed his credibility”.

It was followed by a post of a photo showing a garage door, which police later established was near the man’s home, with the message “Nothing like a drive-by Sunday…Watch this space”.

The complainant, whose name and details were suppressed, was alerted to the posts by friends who had seen them.

A man accused of sending Facebook posts about an official at the Nelson Courthouse has had a charge against him dismissed after it couldn't be proved it was he who sent the messages and not anyone else on the jointly held account. Photo / NZME

The trial heard a dispute occurred between Hall and the man over court-related matters on January 14 this year.

Later that day the complainant said he received screenshots of Facebook posts allegedly crafted by Hall, making a number of accusations against him.

The court official said he was shocked and annoyedand when further screenshots were sent to him, including of the garage door and the associated comment he considered threatening, his anxiety “went through the roof”.

He said at that point he became fearful for his young family.

Hall represented himself with support from his McKenzie friend, Luke Fabian King. A McKenzie friend is a person who attends court in support of a party that does not have legal representation.

He also had a court-appointed amicus curiae, who in this instance was Christchurch barrister Grant Fletcher.

An amicus is a person appointed by the court to assist by offering information and submissions about a particular area of law, or by advancing legal arguments on behalf of an unrepresented party.

Outside of court, Fletcher said having an amicus appointed within the criminal court was “relatively rare” but in this case, it was to ensure a fair trial.

The defence was built on the degree to which the complainant had been affected by the posts, and that perhaps he was “more annoyed” than afraid by things said on the “sewer that is social media from time to time”, Fletcher told the court.

But the complainant disputed a suggestion it was merely a “bunch of stupid comments on Facebook no one could take seriously”.

The defence was also centered on who sent the posts, given the Facebook account from which they came was in joint names.

In court, Fletcher said there was no evidence to determine if it was Hall who had posted the photo of the garage door and associated comment, and argued there was no case to answer and therefore the charge should be dismissed.

“He is the owner of the account with at least one other,” he said.

Senior constable Josh Ballantyne, who was called as a witness, had been involved in the investigation and was able to obtain user account information which confirmed Hall’s connection to the Facebook page.

In dismissing the charge, Judge Pippa Sinclair acknowledged the complainant was distressed by the initial post, but in her view, it “nudged at the definition of harm” rather than meeting the threshold in determining serious emotional distress.

She said the post which referenced the garage door did meet the threshold by which serious emotional stress could be determined, but it was not clear who had sent it.

While the names on the Facebook page were clear, surety of who sent the post was needed in order to prove the charge.

“I don’t discount the seriousness of this bundle of communications but for today’s purpose I cannot be sure the charge is proven beyond reasonable doubt,” Judge Sinclair said.

Hall, through his assistant, apologised to the complainant for his behaviour during their earlier dispute.