Ipswich/Felixstowe: Victim encouraged man to breach restraining order for sixth time

A MAN has walked free from court after being encouraged to breach his restraining order for the sixth time by the woman it was protecting.

Terrence Nichols, of Damselfly Road, Ipswich, had previously spent nearly a month in custody, before being released on bail and finally admitting violating his order for the sixth time in six months.

The 21-year-old’s solicitor Alice Newton told the town’s magistrates at least three of the previous breaches involved Nichols responding to text messages from his former partner Kelly Drew.

Miss Newton said on another occasion Miss Drew turned up at Nichols’ mother’s house in Ipswich.

Although he pleaded with her to leave as it would violate his order, Miss Drew said she was hungry and refused to go so he let her in. Police later turned up at the house and found the pair there.


You may also want to watch:


Miss Newton said when Nichols had broken the order in the past it was usually due to Miss Drew’s conduct.

Magistrates heard there had also been numerous Facebook messages and missed calls to Nichols from Miss Drew, who has unsuccessfully applied for the order to be lifted on two occasions and is hoping to make a third application.

Most Read

The order against Nichols was made in March after a history of violence in their relationship, the court heard.

Following Nichols being charged for the latest violation he was remanded in custody from September 6 to October 2, despite two bail applications.

Magistrates were told that during a third application before Ipswich Crown Court, Judge David Goodin described the situation as “this grossly unsatisfactory state of affairs”.

Earlier prosecutor David Bryant said Nichols restraining order expired on March 7, 2014. However, on September 6 police received information Nichols and Miss Drew were together at his stepfather’s home in Felixstowe.

Although Miss Drew told an officer Nichols was not there, he was found hiding in an airing cupboard.

The magistrates described it as an exceptional case and fined Nichols a total of �115. However, they considered it as paid because Nichols had already spent the day waiting in court for the trial to begin.

Become a Supporter

This newspaper has been a central part of community life for many years. Our industry faces testing times, which is why we're asking for your support. Every contribution will help us continue to produce local journalism that makes a measurable difference to our community.

Become a Supporter
Comments powered by Disqus