AN ARMY chef, who today admitted harassing and threatening to kill his former partner, was told he had escaped prison by the skin of his teeth.
Magistrates in Richmond, North Yorkshire, were told the 29-year-old soldier found it hard to cope after the couple's separation.
But - although the court ruled nothing can be published which could lead to the identity of the child - the hearing was told the couple's relationship became increasingly acrimonious when they began to argue over access arrangements for their son.
On one occasion, during a confrontation in a bar, the soldier serving with the 3 Close Medical Support Regiment in Catterick Garrison grabbed his former partner by the throat.
After moving back to barracks to live, he also used switches outside the couple's former home in Catterick Garrison to turn off the electricity supply to frighten her and had to be spoken to by police after he was caught banging on the house door and windows late at night.
But he was finally locked up after forcing his way into the property after threatening to kill his ex-partner during a telephone conversation earlier the same day.
The woman managed to escape and, with a neighbour's help, returned to rescue the couple's child.
But, when police were called, the soldier - who could be seen cuddling one of his son's soft toys through the living room window - at first refused to answer the door.
He was arrested when he finally gave himself up - but a scalpel was later found inside the house on a chair he had been sitting in.
Yesterday, the 29-year-old admitted making a threat to kill, harassment and carrying a bladed instrument.
Magistrates imposed an indefinite restraining order preventing him from approaching his former partner's home; contact between the two will now have to be through solicitors.
He was also ordered to complete an 80-hour community punishment and rehabilitation order, to pay his ex-partner £500 compensation and to contribute £120 towards prosecution costs.
But, pronouncing sentence, magistrates indicated they had given a prison sentence serious consideration - and jail was the likely consequence of any breach of the orders they had chosen to impose instead.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article