A MAN who pestered his former partner in breach of a court order has been branded a bully by a judge.
Michael Jones, 25, admitted three breaches of a non-molestation order when he appeared at Mold Crown Court.
He had called the woman at college and a “tirade” from him recorded by her on her mobile phone was played to the court.
Jones, of Nelson Street, Shotton, had also been to her home twice and and on one of those occasions had started to take their daughter away.
Judge Niclas Parry jailed him for four months and said what the court had heard recorded only underlined what was obvious – that he was a controlling and manipulative bully. And he had “a total disregard” for court orders.
The judge said former partner Hayley Dodd had been “remarkably restrained” in the face of a tirade of angry abuse on the phone.
Judge Parry said the case was aggravated by the fact Jones had breached the order on three previous occasions.
He had been given a chance by the court a year ago but ignored that chance.
Such orders, said the judge, were made for a purpose, to provide his former partner with protection.
But he added Miss Dodd had contributed towards her own misfortune and the breaches had been over a short period.
In addition to the prison sentence, Judge Parry made a five year restraining order not to contact Miss Dodd, although he would be able to make contact through a third party in regard to child contact.
Emmalyne Downing, prosecuting, said Jones called Miss Dodd’s college in June.
She went to the police station and she received 10 further calls while there. She was able to put her phone on a loudspeaker for an officer to hear what he was saying.
As she walked home he called her again and she recorded him for three minutes.
In July he called at her home despite the order, and on one occasion started to take the baby away until her father arrived.
Kim Halsall, defending, said the defendant’s mother and the complainant’s father were in a relationship with each other and they had all lived together at Shotton and at Cornist Hall Cottages at Flint.
It was his case that despite the non-molestation order, the couple had reconciled after he was released from custody.
They had been living together and the boundaries had become blurred.
The complainant had written him a letter in prison saying that she appreciated that he needed to be a father to their daughter.
Both had since moved on and were in new relationships, Miss Halsall said.