Multiple charges against a Cookstown man including revenge porn are alleged to have occurred while he was subject to a Restraining Order.
Kyle Ashley Stinson (40) from Edinburgh Drive is accused of disclosing a private sexual image of his former partner, pursuing a course of conduct amounting to harassment, breaching the Restraining Order and engaging in abusive behaviour likely to cause physical or psychological harm.
Offending is alleged to have occurred on various dates between January 10 and March 19.
A detective constable told Dungannon Magistrates’ Court the charges could be connected.
She explained police received a report from Stinson’s ex-partner in relation to ongoing harassment.
Despite having a Restraining Order against Stinson since November last year the woman said he had been contacting her continuously since it was imposed by Facebook Messenger.
The contact was coming through a profile in the same of Sebastian Forbes which she knew was Stinson’s and since January 27 there were numerous phone calls in which she recognised his voice.
In the course of this he threatened that if she blocked him, he would, “get on a bus, come to her home and go at her.”
She genuinely believed he would which terrified, so she occasionally replied to his messages to appease him.
However she decided to delete her entire Facebook content on March 18 but despite this she received over 250 messages from Stinson from that date onward.
The detective said the vast majority of messages are of “an abusive and jealous nature”.
There have also been 58 phone calls since January and Stinson then began messaging the woman’s current partner. In the course of this he sent him an image of her topless.
Objecting to bail the detective stated: “The injured party is a high risk domestic violence victim. The defendant has 10 breaches of bail and two breaches of a Non-Molestation Order involving this woman.”
She added, when arrested, Stinson denied any contact was abusive or pestering and contended his ex-partner initiated contact and he “foolishly” reciprocated despite the Restraining Order.
District Judge Francis Rafferty enquired of the defence: “In effect is he saying it’s her fault?”
The defence conceded it was a difficult application for bail adding: “There is a long, fraught history between these parties. The defendant accepts it was wrong to engage and understand the difficulties that places him in.”
Stinson was prepared to surrender all phones and devices and his father was offering to provide an address and a cash surety, if bail was granted.
But Judge Rafferty told the defendant, who repeatedly shrugged his shoulders throughout the hearing: “You have previous breaches of a Non-Molestation Order and now present in alleged breach of a Restraining Order. Then when spoken to by police you suggest the complainant somehow inveigled you into communication.”
Throwing out the application the judge added: “There are no conditions the court could impose to satisfy me you will not try to cause further distress.”
Stinson will appear again by video-link on April 9.
