Upload a photo Upload a video Upload an mp3 Upload an event


Man Jailed For Breaching Restraining Order

Wednesday November 6 2013

Barnsley Magistrates' Court Barnsley Magistrates' Court

A MAN who was banned from contacting his ex has been jailed for 58 weeks - for giving their son £20 at her house.

John Kavanagh, prosecuting at Barnsley Magistrates' Court, said Peter David Arnott walked straight into the house.

"He said he wanted to give his son some money, Mr Kavanagh added. "The defendant left when his former partner said she was calling the police."

The court heard that the encounter breached the terms of a 24-week prison sentence, suspended for two years. The sentence was imposed for an earlier breach of the restraining order.

Alyson Goldsmith, defending, said Arnott, 35, of Ladywood Road, Grimethorpe, deeply regretted going to his ex-partner's home. She said Arnott didm't think the woman would be in.

Mrs Goldsmith added: "Mr Arnott found out his ex-partner and her children were short of money. He had a spare £40 and wanted to give £20 of what little he had to a son.

"Mr Arnott thought he was doing the right thing when his ex-partner and the children were in financial difficulties.

"He realises a dim view is taken when a court order is breached."

District Judge John Foster said: "Your behaviour has been governed by drink and drugs for a long time.

"When I imposed the suspended prison sentence, I gave you a chance to show you could live your life in the way you said you would from then on.

"An immediate jail sentence is of no use to you, your family or the public. But I am left with no alternative."

Arnott admitted breaching the restraining order and the terms of the suspended sentence. He also admitted three thefts.

Leave a comment
comments powered by Disqus
52 Showing 52 comments

Reply Posted by nw on Wednesday November 6 2013 at 16:14
jesus not the worst crime in the world is it ,he was only trying to help is son out with some money,wonder how long he would get if he had to give is son £20 every week and he didnt give him it ,how this country going on he would get 15 year and 1000 unpaid hours

Reply Posted by lisa borrow on Monday February 3 2014 at 16:06
I am the aunty of the three kids that the excuse of a man beat all 3 of my nephews, he now is in jail for ten months for continually breaking his restraining order. still he did not or will not listen. yet my nephews and sister are still in fear for there safety when the junkie self absorbed **** gets the ok to do it all again... now she cannot get a solicitor because he has been to them all before, her fault getting with him, he did not go to give her or the kids 20 quid, he walked through the door ballied up to rob her..... not a crime????? still think the same??????>?????????

Reply Posted by Kilkenny on Wednesday November 6 2013 at 16:26
@nw What a fool you are,The order was placed on him for a good reason.Probably violent towards his ex partner..He was given a chance by the courts,"BUT SADLY THOUGHT HE WAS ABOVE THE LAW" deserves everything he gets coming to him,The kids that suffer!!!

Reply Posted by x on Wednesday November 6 2013 at 16:35
prison is for people who break the law,he broke his restraining order he broke the law.people have been murdered by these types of people by breaking restraining orders

Reply Posted by ade on Wednesday November 6 2013 at 16:45
Judge seems reasonable to me, he had the cance. And the story of spare 20 quid give it a rest he knew he cocked up and told a cock a bull story to make him look the saint with good intensions when realy he knew exactly what he was doing

Reply Posted by samantha thompson on Wednesday November 6 2013 at 16:58
good he was told to keep away from his x for a reason women die each week from domestic abuse

Reply Posted by Tony on Wednesday November 6 2013 at 17:01
Making himself out to be a saint, but also admitted three thefts - by the way.
Get yourself off the stuff fella and give your kid something to be proud of or he'll end up just like you - or worse.

Reply Posted by TheGuardian on Wednesday November 6 2013 at 19:33
'He also admitted three thefts.' Thief, go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect £200. Thieves belong in Jail, so do druggies. This is why our town is a dump, joints of meat are electronically tagged due to thieving druggies.

Reply Posted by Richard on Wednesday November 6 2013 at 19:45
So the man tries to do a good deed and his ex thanks him by getting him put in prison?!! And the judge thinks this is positive and appropriate action to take and the best use of public funds?! Shameful and disgusting. Well done judge, you're a real bright spark!

Reply Posted by Roger on Wednesday November 6 2013 at 20:06
Richard you are a cretin..this action is not a good deed..restraining orders are only given when a threat of violence is possible..women die EVERY week because of violent partners.....idiot.

Reply Posted by hally1297 on Wednesday November 6 2013 at 21:13
Well said Roger. Whats not mentioned is all the assaults and incidents of domestic disputes that probably led to this order in the first place

Reply Posted by Swifty on Wednesday November 6 2013 at 21:31
Domestic Violence either caused by Males or Females is not accepted.People that find themselves in these situation live in fear for there lives, sadly this his becoming more common in 2013.

Remember a jealous partner is more dangerous then a mad partner.

Reply Posted by Pauline on Monday February 3 2014 at 20:55
So very true

Reply Posted by Dave T on Wednesday November 6 2013 at 22:14
What an absolutely appalling headline from WAB. A Court deemed it appropriate to issue a restraining order against this man, something which would only be done as a result of him being violent towards the woman. It was issued to PROTECT the woman and her children from this low life and he ignored the order at least TWICE. THAT is why he got sent to prison NOT because he was daddy of the year giving his son £20. There's no wonder women don't report abuse!

Reply Posted by Alex on Thursday November 7 2013 at 08:30
I think on this occasion the judge was right, she was left with no alternative but to put him in prison. If he had more self respect for himself and tried some other way to help, ie give his son the money on his access day (assuming he has got access) his ex might think more highly of him.

What I don't understand reading this is, why doesn't he give more towards her maintenance?

Reply Posted by Kilkenny on Thursday November 7 2013 at 08:56
Alex@ "why doesn,t he give more towards her maintenance" Because he dosn,t work.he is a low-life scumbag.And the judge gave a restraining order,WHY? because he more than likely gave his EX a crack..

Reply Posted by kilkenny on Thursday November 7 2013 at 09:03
If you are going to post in my name LOL will you turn that bloody CAPS LOCK off please. Having said that your point is quite valid.

Reply Posted by Richard on Thursday November 7 2013 at 09:28
I've seen women abuse the system and lie and cheat and exaggerate to gain sympathy in court. The poor bloke was probably missing his kids and wanted to help. It reports that he left when she threatened to call police, it doesn't say he was threatening.

Don't believe that the court system in Barnsley is in any way good or fair towards men. It isn't.

Reply Posted by Kilkenny on Thursday November 7 2013 at 09:34
Kilkenny,Very sorry but I didn.t think WAB had a policy on usernames,MY name is Bill Kilkenny from Great Houghton.If you feel you have the right for you "Only" to post in a certain name.You must take this up with WAB,or change your username.This is my first post and I have been reading a few posts to familiarise myself about the site.Alot of users feel there have the right to post in a certain Username,But until WAB change there policy there is nothing you can do.You are from London and I am from Barnsley,Stick to your own sites or change YOUR username..regards (Barnsley)Kilkenny

Reply Posted by June on Thursday November 7 2013 at 09:41
Well said Kilkenny..To many on WAB take it for granted that once there have made a post in a Username,nobody else can use the same Username..Sorry to inform you. YOU are wrong!

Reply Posted by Here Here on Thursday November 7 2013 at 09:44
Here here...get a life,post in any Name you like!!

Reply Posted by Sid on Thursday November 7 2013 at 09:47
Free speech for all....Free speech for all....Free speech for all...

Reply Posted by the real sid on Thursday November 7 2013 at 09:48
too true kilkenny ,im sick of that imposter sid using my username.its not amusing anymore .

Reply Posted by Sid on Thursday November 7 2013 at 09:50
Not your username..Free speech for all........Free speech for all....Free speech for all,,

Reply Posted by kilkenny on Thursday November 7 2013 at 09:49
June - if people stick to just one username it will make them identifiable to posters. On mumsnet you are allowed to have several usernames but once one is taken it cannot be used by somebody else. Ah well, Mumsnet is hardly WAB is it? Big big difference (sniggers). Now all it takes is a little bit of brain to find an original one.....................

By the way 'Kilkenny' from Great Houghton posts under the name LOL and makes lots of foul comments on here. You can tell by his posting style. He has issues with the space bar.

Reply Posted by Kilkenny on Thursday November 7 2013 at 09:55
So Wrong.I am Educated. I feel offended as LOL can,t put a sentence together,(Barnsley) Kilkenny

Reply Posted by Richard on Thursday November 7 2013 at 09:51
For anybody not liking my post, please consider this. That judge has just cost the tax payer over £40,000. The mother is cash strapped and the father had money to give his kids.

That same mother could be on a power trip wanting to punish her ex. For what reason, who knows. Could be violence, could be an invention of violence to hurt him and keep him away from his kids.

That man risked prison just to get his kids some money. That says something.

How many absent parents are out there? How many kids live in poverty.

The system can do better. Our judges need to do better.

Reply Posted by Kilkenny on Thursday November 7 2013 at 10:03
Some good points Richard.But sadly we do not know all the facts.The Judge put in place an Order for a very good reason.Maybe to protect his EX from violence.Too many of these cases end up in Disaster..Just hope he learns his lesson and goes about seeing his Kids through the right Channels..

Reply Posted by the ex on Monday February 3 2014 at 16:56
i am the ex partner of this man you want to support. He professes he came to help me.... NO. he came to take £20 to feed his drug habit(wearing a balaclava) hiding his identity because he had the order in place. After that incident, he locked me and OUR 3 boys in the house. he assaulted all 3 of OUR boys.... aged 13,10 and 7 and tried to strangle me!!!! Do you still think the judges are wrong for their sentence, or don you think they were lenient????

Reply Posted by Kilkenny on Thursday November 7 2013 at 09:58
@LOL - will you sort your comma and apostrophe issues out. I am getting tired of telling you now.

Reply Posted by kilkenny on Thursday November 7 2013 at 10:04
bloody hell im lost without my spell checker,i dont want to start spelling my worms wrong.

Reply Posted by the real sid on Thursday November 7 2013 at 10:08
are we not british,a lot of people gave their lives in 2 world wars so that we could have the right of freedom of speech.

Reply Posted by STEVEO on Thursday November 7 2013 at 17:17
There is NO freedom of speech under this Tory government , they collude with their right wing media cohorts to actively supress information from the masses.
On Tuesday the 5th of November "activist" group Anonymous staged a protest in Trafalgar Square in London ,Comprised of like-minded people who are sick to death of the corrupt, bullying political elite in this country and across the globe.

And guess what?

Not ONE of the news corporations nor newspapers have given Anonymous any coverage despite almost 100,000 people being in the protest that effectively brought London to a standstill.

Back to the topic in hand, i do not know the ins and outs of this particular case but 58 weeks for breaking a court order does seem somewhat excessive especially in comparison with smackrats that burgle houses and get away scot free.

Reply Posted by barnsley crew on Thursday November 7 2013 at 10:13

Reply Posted by sheffield sam on Thursday November 7 2013 at 10:21
i agree with barnsley crew and the real sid.our freedom of speech has been bought by the sacrifices of our brave yorkshire men.

Reply Posted by Richard on Thursday November 7 2013 at 10:30
@kilkenny the judge put an order in place. Judges are known to be lied to by women in court to gain sympathy. I'm not saying this happened, but we all know it can and does happen. So the order is there, but not necessarily for a good or valid reason.

I've seen how judges treat men in these situations and I'm saying its possible that he was treated harshly, to again be imprisoned for essentially doing a deed of feeding his kids.

Reply Posted by Alison on Thursday November 7 2013 at 13:38
Maybe see a therapist?

You have underlying issues and a need to express these through any story, this one seems to have hit the spot.


Reply Posted by darton dave on Thursday November 7 2013 at 10:32

Reply Posted by Kilkenny on Thursday November 7 2013 at 10:50
DartonDave - If you look at the posts you will see lots of variation in posting style.

That is because multiple posters post in the names Kilkenny and Sid.

Reply Posted by Krapkenny on Thursday November 7 2013 at 10:55
Kilkenny & Sid are of the same Person.I Think there are Siamese Twins and arguing who,s turn it is to Post...

Reply Posted by hunnybunny on Thursday November 7 2013 at 11:06
The Judge in this case had to do their job I understand that but I can tell you that I know of a woman from Barnsley who made some appalling lies up about her ex partner all because she was angry that he left her as she was violent towards HIM! She has a brown belt in Karate yet she stood in front of a Judge and said that her ex was was controlling and violent towards her (after she had hit him with her car) she had no evidence of any violence (because there was none) yet because he couldn't afford a solicitor to prove that he wasn't that kind of person and she stood there pretending to be scared, the judge ruled in her favour and now her and her solicitor use that to control his contact with his child, this guy has now been unfairly labelled as being violent and everyone she tells her story to believes her and judges him without hearing the other side. Judges are to quick to decide a persons fate due to high workloads. Seems that there is plenty of people on here quick to judge too.

Reply Posted by hunnybunny on Thursday November 7 2013 at 11:16
Please let I remind you of the large numbers of children living in poverty. Yes he has used drugs and has stolen, yes he needs help in cleaning himself up and needs support doing this,yes he went the wrong way about giving the money to his child.But he did it to support his child, to help. At least he was trying to do the right thing. Spending taxpayers money to put him in prison is not helping his families circumstances nor is it helping him in supporting him to better his life. If i was given limited access to my children and found out that they was desperate for money I would risk prison too to make sure that they could eat. Makes you wonder what peoples view would be if it was the mother trying to give money to her kids.

Reply Posted by June on Thursday November 7 2013 at 15:03
I assume you used my regular username to illustrate a point?

Perhaps a login system with verification is needed and might deter the worst offenders?

Reply Posted by WAB on Thursday November 7 2013 at 15:13
What is happening with this latest Craze.Please note nobody ON WAB is entitled to OWN the username and anybody can post in what name there like,Stop thinking you own WAB and pick another blooy username..IT IS NOT THE END OF THE WORLD..

Reply Posted by Richard on Thursday November 7 2013 at 16:05
Unfortunately, it's the sad people deliberately impersonating others within a thread which is where the trouble starts. I think this is where people are complaining.

Reply Posted by RICKY on Thursday November 7 2013 at 16:44
you sound a well educated person Richard.Now there is 2 clever dickies..

Reply Posted by the voice of barnsley on Thursday November 7 2013 at 16:21

Reply Posted by the real sid on Thursday November 7 2013 at 17:13
ivhad my suspicions about sid the fake sid and his sidekick kilkenny.kilkenny would have us believe he is a she and yhe fake sid is always online at the nearly the sametime as kilkenny which makes me think they are one and the same person.

Reply Posted by kilkenny on Saturday November 9 2013 at 14:09
Had a good think about the childishness i'm displaying it's very silly sorry to everyone who has had to put up with it :)

Reply Posted by Dale Broadhead on Saturday November 9 2013 at 14:16
Yes the judge was right should have gave him 5 years won't do it again , must think were idiots giving kid 20 quid , pull another one

Reply Posted by x on Saturday November 9 2013 at 17:23
you havn't got a clue about the real world richard,i know someone whos sister was murdered through domestic violence,i have also been on the recieving end of domestic violence,witnessed by my kids,you are either ignorantly stupid or you have probably given a dose of domestic violence to some poor person,then justified your actions with some lame excuse,well you know what richard its too late when someone is murdered.believe me it happens a lot more and a lot closer to home than you think

Reply Posted by WOMBWELL COURIER on Sunday November 10 2013 at 09:25
Nowt wrong with the Lessy ladettes in BUTCHers LOL.