A FATHER breached a restraining order by sending a card to his daughter telling her he had cancer… but couldn’t be sentenced as he hadn’t supplied the court with medical documents to prove he had the disease.
The court heard how Edward McHenry, of Melford Green, Aylesbury, had separated from his ex-wife Kim McHenry in 2017.
The defendant had been serving a non-molestation order in the years since to prevent him contacting his ex-wife or their daughter.
After breaching the non-molestation order, McHenry was given a restraining order, and after breaching that, he was given a two-year suspended sentence.
Less than two weeks after receiving that sentence, McHenry sent a card to his daughter’s work address of Cookson’s Garage, Lawford.
The card read: “I don’t think I’m going to be here next year – I’ve got terminal cancer (sarcoma) which has spread to my lungs already.”
McHenry initially denied breaching the suspended sentence but was found guilty before magistrates in December.
He then appeared before Chelmsford Crown Court for sentencing on Wednesday.
Lori Tucker, prosecuting, said: “[His daughter] initially thought it might be a congratulatory card.
“The daughter told her mother about the card, which was perhaps an entirely foreseeable outcome.
“Mrs McHenry could hear from the phone call her daughter was crying down the phone.
“That in turn made Mrs McHenry upset, and she said she couldn’t understand how a father could do that to the child – she believed it was an attempt to manipulate or spite her.”
Jonathan Rosen, mitigating, said McHenry was dealing with a forthcoming cancer diagnosis at the time he sent the card.
Recorder Jacob Hallam said he couldn’t sentence McHenry without medical documents proving the cancer diagnosis.
He said: “This is somebody who has breached an order not long after it was imposed and has earlier convictions.
“In order to impose a sentence that is fair and properly reflects your criminality, it’s important the court knows in detail what your current state of help is.
“I would want something official and medical in order to properly address that question.”
The case is next set to be heard on May 22.
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 The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.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