Stanley man reacted 'foolishly' to damage caused to his parked Audi

The events of late on July 1 last year brought defendant Stewart Anderson before a court for the first time.

Durham Crown Court was told his uncharacteristic outburst arose several days after an incident of fly-tipping in Southfield Court, Stanley, in which rubbish was left in the street, where the defendant parked his Audi car and a neighbour left his work van and Citroen Picasso car.

Tabitha Buck, prosecuting earlier on the evening of July 1 a woman knocked at the complainant’s door accusing him of damaging the defendant’s Audi, caused by a broken chair having been dumped in the street.

Read more: Stanley row between neighbours, 66 and 72, spilled onto driveway

Miss Buck said the complainant and his partner explained that they were not responsible for the damage, but tempers were raised over the allegations and threats were uttered.

Shortly before midnight the couple heard a “sloshing” noise outside and saw white liquid dripping from their vehicle.

A male figure was seen running away carrying a bucket, and he was recognised as the defendant.

Miss Buck said the liquid thrown over the vehicle was paint and so the victim went to the defendant’s nearby property and knocked at the door.

She said the knocks were greeted with either silence or obscenities from within and the victim retreated to the public path.

But Anderson then burst out of his front door, carrying a small hatchet-type axe, lunging at the iron guard on a fence and striking metal railings near to where the complainant and his partner were standing.

Shouts were made urging him to put down the weapon, but Anderson continued to threaten his neighbour.

Miss Buck said he carried on waving the axe around, complaining about the damage caused to his car.

The defendant was arrested the following day and a search was carried out at his home, but the hatchet was not found.

He was arrested, cautioned and interviewed later that day, but exercised his right to silence, making “no comment” replies.

Read more: County Durham couple jailed for 'overreaction' to dispute

The 29-year-old defendant, of Southfield Court, was charged with criminal damage and possessing a bladed article in public.

He pleaded guilty at his first appearance before magistrates, who sent the case to be sentenced at the crown court.

The sentencing hearing was told it was his first conviction, although he received an unrelated caution in 2013.

Katie Spence, in mitigation, said the defendant believed damage had been caused to his vehicle and so it could be considered, “a revenge attack”.

But she provided the court with a number of character references, both from the defendant’s family members and from other neighbours in the street.

She said the incident could be considered, “a one-off”, and out of character, given his lack of a record for violent or aggressive behaviour.

Miss Spence said the two couples are no longer neighbours as the complainant and his partner have moved from the street.

Judge Jo Kidd told Armstrong that his behaviour that night was, “very poor”, and it was a “great concern” that he should emerge from his home waving about a hatchet.

“I’m not fully clear as to what led up to this incident as, on the face of it, you are not a man with a violent past, and other neighbours speak of you as a quiet, sociable and peaceful man.”

She described the throwing of paint over the parked vehicle as, “a foolish act” and, in the absence of a repair bill, ordered the defendant to pay £250 compensation to the vehicle owner.

Read next:

               County Durham man jailed for 'remorseless' and 'humiliating' violence

               County Durham couple jailed for 'overreaction' to dispute

               Man punched woman three times in Seaham flat row

If you want to read more great stories, why not subscribe to your Northern Echo for as little as £1.25 a week. Click here

Judge Kidd then imposed a 12-month prison sentence, but suspended it for two years, during which the defendant must take part in ten rehabilitation activity days overseen by the Probation Service.

She also made Armstrong subject of a six-month, 7pm to 7am electronically-monitored home curfew.

The judge also asked the prosecution to make inquiries of the complainants to see if they would like a restraining order to be put in place, but she added that it may no longer be appropriate, given that they have moved from the street.