Shropshire Star

Restraining order for man cleared of harassing women’s rights campaigner online

A “men’s rights advocate” cleared by a jury of putting a prominent barrister and women’s rights campaigner in fear of violence by harassing her on Twitter - now known as X - has been handed a five-year restraining order to protect her.

Published

Former soldier David Mottershead, 42, from Machynlleth, Mid Wales, insisted he had not intended to threaten Dr Charlotte Proudman and denied the harassment allegation during a trial at Mold Crown Court last November.

The jury convicted Mottershead of having a lock-knife when he went to Aberystwyth Police Station to be quizzed, and on Wednesday, he was given a 20-week prison term, suspended for 18 months. He must pay £154 costs.

Summing up the case to the jury, Judge Rhys Rowlands said Mottershead and Dr Proudman held very different views about gender equality. Both sought to promote them on social media.

The prosecution had alleged that Mottershead targeted Dr Proudman, using threatening language and posting images intended to harass her and cause her to fear that violence would be used against her. The court heard that she found a comparison with Hitler particularly upsetting and feared an image of a man pointing a gun.

The defence accepted Mottershead was responsible for the messages but said he did not direct them at the lawyer.

Mottershead, who had served in Kosovo, had post-traumatic stress and partial autism and took “great issue” with Dr Proudman’s views, said his defence, adding that he had not intended to compare the barrister directly with Hitler nor that he intended to “try and shut Charlotte Proudman up”.

Passing sentence, Judge Rowlands said Mottershead had mental health issues but had expressed little faith in the medical profession.

The judge said: "Although you were acquitted of the offence of harassment, the court retains the power to impose a restraining order on acquittal where it is of the view that such an order is necessary to protect another, in this case Dr Proudman.

"Whatever your intention was in relation to her as an individual the inflammatory and plainly threatening nature of your posts simply cannot be justified and I accept without any reservation at all that she genuinely and indeed understandably felt very threatened by your behaviour. Frankly no one should have to put up with that. You are entitled to express your views and to challenge those put up by others but this isn't an unlimited right.

"It is quite clear to me that you seem to spend much of your time online pursuing your interest, which appear to be pretty all-consuming in the rights of the male gender.

"I agree with the probation officer that you appear to be quite fixated with those views."

The judge said Mottershead was entitled to his views but it was clear that they were far from beneficial to his mental health in the way he was exploring them.

He added that where those views become fixated and expressed in an intemperate and extreme view towards an individual, the court had to protect that individual. Dr Proudman should not have to put up with "fear and unease", he added.

Judge Rowlands remarked : "The internet and social media in all its forms has of course huge and many, many advantages. But it also has an underside which sometimes leads to people expressing deeply unpleasant and unpalatable beliefs in a threatening way through anonymity or obscurity of their keyboards.

"Where that leads to someone - here Dr Proudman - fearing for their safety, in my judgment it has to be addressed by way of a restraining order."

Sorry, we are not accepting comments on this article.