Anton Mann, a 34-year-old resident of Low Street, Kilburn, found himself facing the consequences of his repeated disregard for court orders designed to protect his ex-partner. On January 28th, police discovered Mann hiding in the shrubs of his ex-partner’s garden in Sherburn-in-Elmet, North Yorkshire. This discovery followed a tip-off from probation officers who, upon visiting Mann’s home and finding him absent, suspected he might be violating the court orders prohibiting him from contacting or approaching the woman. This incident became the latest in a series of legal breaches related to Mann’s persistent pursuit of his former partner, ultimately leading to a 12-week jail sentence and a stern admonition from the judge to “grow up.”
Mann’s arrest highlighted his blatant disregard for not one, but two court orders specifically designed to protect his ex-partner. One was a restraining order issued by Leeds Magistrates’ Court following a prior conviction for harassing the woman. The second was a non-molestation order issued by the Family Court. These orders underscored the seriousness of Mann’s behavior and the lengths to which the legal system had gone to safeguard the woman. Despite these legal barriers, Mann continued his pursuit, culminating in his clandestine presence in her garden. The prosecution emphasized the history of similar offences, painting a picture of Mann’s persistent and troubling behavior towards his ex-partner. The gravity of the situation was further underscored by the fact that one of the orders had been issued a mere 13 days before his latest transgression.
District Judge Adrian Lower delivered a clear message to Mann during the sentencing hearing at York Magistrates’ Court. He emphasized the consequences of disregarding court orders, stating that “there is a penalty to face.” The judge’s words, “Time to grow up Anton Mann,” reflected the frustration and concern over Mann’s repeated inability to accept the end of the relationship and adhere to the legal boundaries set in place for the safety and well-being of his ex-partner. The 12-week jail sentence served as a stark reminder of the seriousness of the offense and the court’s commitment to enforcing its orders. Beyond the incarceration, Mann was ordered to pay £85 in prosecution costs and a £154 statutory surcharge.
The details surrounding Mann’s previous conviction in Derby Magistrates’ Court on January 15th, only 13 days prior to his arrest, further illuminate the extent of his problematic behavior. He had pleaded guilty to harassing the woman with a barrage of phone calls and messages, violating the existing non-molestation order from March 28th of the previous year – also stemming from constant calls and messages – and failing to appear in court. For these offenses, he was initially given a community order that included wearing an alcohol abstinence tag for 120 days, among other requirements. However, due to his subsequent breach of the restraining order, Judge Lower revoked the community order and incorporated the penalties for the Derby offenses into the 12-week jail sentence. The restraining order and non-molestation order remained in full effect.
Mann’s defense attorney, Brian Nuttney, attempted to mitigate the situation by claiming that Mann had merely gone to the woman’s house to retrieve items needed for job applications. He further asserted that the woman had initiated contact with Mann, prompting his visit. Nuttney stressed that Mann’s actions had not caused any harm or distress to the woman. He argued that Mann’s long-term struggle with depression and anxiety, coupled with a recent diagnosis of borderline personality disorder, contributed to his difficulties. This explanation sought to contextualize Mann’s behavior, suggesting that his mental health challenges played a role in his actions.
The defense also emphasized Mann’s self-medicating with alcohol as a means of coping with his mental health struggles. This reliance on alcohol, Nuttney argued, exacerbated his negative thought patterns and contributed to his offending behavior. The friction between Mann and his new housemate in Leeds resulting from the alcohol abstinence tag requirement imposed by the Derby sentence was also highlighted. This detail further illustrated the complexity of Mann’s situation and the challenges he faced in complying with the court-ordered conditions. The defense aimed to present a more nuanced picture of Mann, suggesting that his actions were rooted in underlying mental health issues and a maladaptive coping mechanism rather than malicious intent. Nonetheless, the judge remained firm in his decision, prioritizing the safety and well-being of the victim and sending a clear message about the consequences of disregarding court orders.
