Wife cleared of harassing husband after he felt 'threatened' by her

Wife is cleared of harassing her estranged husband over bitter divorce after he claimed he was ‘threatened and intimidated’ when she emailed him at work four times ‘to clear the air’

• Sarah-Jane Woodford, 45, was charged for harassing her ex-husband via email
• Cordialities vanished when Lee Woodford, 50, refused contact with his ex-wife
• Mr Woodford claims she emailed and rang his work four times and visited twice
• Mrs Woodford left her husband in December 2021 after a ‘difficult year’

A wife was detained and charged by police for bickering with her estranged husband over their divorce has been cleared after she insisted she had been engaging in marital ‘argument’ and not ‘abuse.’ 

Sarah-Jane Woodford, 45, from Ellesmere Port, was accused of harassment after her husband, Lee Woodford, 50, claimed he had been left ‘threatened and intimidated’ when she emailed him after weeks of arguing. 

In total, she emailed her husband at work four times, phoned him four times and twice visited him at his home claiming she had post for him.

The couple, who had ended their seven year marriage, were bickering after Mr Woodford, 50, blocked his ex-wife’s mobile phone and accused her of ‘swanning around Thailand with another bloke and cheating on him’.

Sarah-Jane Woodford, 45, was charged of harassment after her husband, Lee Woodford, 50, claimed he had been left ‘threatened and intimidated’ by her constant attempts to reach out

In turn, she accused him of having £10,000 worth of dental work done in Turkey whilst providing her with just a lampshade, an ironing board, and no money in maintenance.

She also castigated him for messaging a family friend’s 14-year old daughter on Instagram and removing her access to an iCloud account containing family photographs including their wedding.

Matters came to a head when Mrs Woodford, sent an email to her estranged husband’s workplace at a software firm in Chester saying: ‘Would you be happy to meet up to clear the air? Take Care. SJ x.’

When he responded: ‘Do not email my work’, she fired back: ‘Just remember your work email is monitored. Maybe you should do the right thing. I will contact you by whatever means if you block me if we need to communicate with each other. It’s not all on your terms.’

Mrs Woodford was later questioned by police before she was ordered to face court charged with harassment without violence, which has a maximum sentence of six months jail. 

At Warrington magistrates court following a seven month legal ordeal, Mrs Woodford, of Little Sutton, Ellesmere Port, sobbed as she was cleared of charges following a trial to cheers from the public gallery.

The court heard Mrs Woodford walked out on her husband in December 2021 after a ‘difficult year’ and they initially agreed to have a ‘clean break.’ 

Mrs Woodford was cleared of all charges at Warrington magistrates court following the seven month legal order

But cordial relations froze over in March when Mr Woodford sent a WhatsApp message to tell his wife to stop contacting him except about their divorce following a disagreement over him messaging her 13 year old daughter from a previous relationship.

‘I’m going to put this simply as nicely as I can in a nice manner,’ he said.. ‘Firstly you have no right to ask who I am in touch with, whether it’s your daughter or not. I’m not interested in who you are in touch with or what you are doing. I suggest you do the same.

‘Secondly, it seems your daughter is not talking to you otherwise why would you be asking me (asking your own daughter would be my suggestion) and it appears you want to blame me. It’s not my problem and nothing to do with me.

‘Let’s just keep to things about the divorce process please or I will just block you again. Have a good week.’

In response, Mrs Woodford sent a laughing emoji and said that she had ‘every right’ to ask him about his communication with her daughter.

She later referenced a trip he had taken to Turkey for dental treatment and that maybe his ‘girlfriend’ would not approve of her contacting him. 

Mr Woodford said that her attempts to contact him at work through monitored emails felt like ‘an intrusion’ and ‘an invasion of my privacy’

Mr Woodford told the hearing: ‘I considered matters had taken a more sinister turn and I felt that there was nothing to be gained from messages that were maybe abusive and confrontational between us.

‘There was no point. We should only be discussing the divorce. So I said we should only be having contact regarding the divorce. I let her know that verbally and in messages as well.

When asked about her request to ‘clear the air’, he added: ‘I think that was crossing a boundary. I did not want my personal life or anything to do with the relationship known in my work. It was a monitored email. I did feel it was an intrusion on me.

‘I am a recovering alcoholic and I thought her subsequent reply might be a threat, making comments about my alcoholism in the past. I do not know what the reference to girlfriend is. I think she may have thought I had a girlfriend but it was untrue. I did not have one.

‘I was in jeopardy with my work at the time and I have since lost that job.. I already said that I did not want any contact through my work email. I just thought it was an invasion of my privacy.

‘When you split up you expect it’s never going to be a nice situation but when she refers to things I was buying, cars on the drive and the email to work threatening to let them know things about me, it made me feel intimidated and harassed.’

Mrs Woodford told the court her husband would often ‘block her’ on her phone and email. ‘We would fall out, then make friends again,’ she said. ‘It was always the same.’

She said when she found she was unable to access the photos on iCloud she thought they had been deleted and added: ‘I was devastated. Thousands of my memories on my phone had just gone and I wanted to ask him about the photos.

The ongoing argument between the pair has been described as ‘tit-for-tat’ and further application from Mr Woodford for a restraining order was rejected as ‘unnecessary’

‘I wanted to clear the air. I was exhausted from all the arguing. We’re not together anymore so there’s no need to argue. We still had to communicate about things going on. I just wanted to have a conversation with him.’

Regarding the message Mr Woodford sent to the family’s friend’s daughter, she said: ‘She thought it was very strange and told her mum and the mum was furious. We did go on holiday a few years ago with her and the children but we’d had no communication since.’

Prosecutor Simon Leong said Mrs Woodford had been ‘nasty, unpleasant and threatening’ and added: ‘She has pursued a course of conduct that has not only amounted to harassment, but to stalking as well.’

But defence lawyer Peter Barnett said: ‘Where is the abuse? It’s an argument, it’s not abuse.’

He added: ‘It’s tit-for-tat. What’s worse, him saying that she was cheating on him with another man. She received no notification from police, saying: ‘Do not contact him’, which used to be the position. She has never been told not to contact him other than from him, who has been blocking her and unblocking her on a regular basis.’

Acquitting Mrs Woodford, chair of the bench, Elizabeth Shone said: ‘We accept her evidence which was credible and consistent whilst we reject the evidence of Mr Woodford, which was inconsistent.’

A further application from the prosecution for a restraining order was rejected as ‘unnecessary.’

Source: Read Full Article