Got a Lancaster or Morecambe story? Contact us.
Rapist banned from family contact
A father-of-three jailed for raping his wife has been banned from approaching his family by a High Court judge and made the subject of what is thought to be a unique non-molestation order.
Mr Justice Baker has made a range of banning orders aimed at keeping the man's wife and three daughters safe from him.
One forbids the man, who was serving a 17-year jail term, from "holding himself out" as being his wife or daughters in "any electronic mail, social networking or other communications".
The judge said he thought such action could be classified as "molestation" - although he said he did not think that such an order had been made before.
Mr Justice Baker said the family had been "broken apart" as a result of "allegations of extreme violence perpetrated by the father" - who had been convicted of raping and sexually assaulting his wife following a trial.
The judge said the man posed a risk to his "whole family", even though he was in prison, and was "determined and resourceful at tracking them down".
He said the woman and her daughters - aged 20, 17 and 11 - had gone "into hiding" and had moved to a "succession of locations" in an effort to avoid being found by the man.
And the judge said they needed the "highest level of protection" that he could provide.
Detail of the case has emerged in a written ruling by Mr Justice Baker following a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London.
No-one was identified.
He said the woman had launched family court litigation and asked for orders which would protect her and her daughters.
The man had "persisted in resisting" her applications, said the judge.
Mr Justice Baker made more than a dozen orders aimed at protecting the woman and her daughters.
The judge said the man was forbidden from behaviour including: locating or attempting to locate them; approaching them; using or threatening violence against them; harassing or pestering them; coming within 10 miles of anywhere they lived, worked or studied; making contact with them by letter, telephone, Skype, text message, email, any means of electronic communication, or through any social networking sites; accessing or attempting to access any email, Facebook or other electronic account operated by any of them and holding himself out as being any of them in any electronic mail, social networking or other communications.
"He is determined and resourceful at tracking them down," said Mr Justice Baker.
"I regret to say that the whole family remains at risk from him, either directly or indirectly through others, notwithstanding the fact that he is currently in prison. If and when he is allowed his liberty, there is a strong likelihood that he will resume his search for the family.
"During his incarceration, there is also a significant risk that he will encourage or instruct others to take up the search on his behalf, as he has done in the past.
"Every effort must therefore be made to provide comprehensive protection to the mother and her daughters."
He the woman and her daughters needed the "highest level of protection that can be provided by the court".
"The range of orders ... is wider than normally applied for or granted, " he added. "The order ... 'holding himself out as being any of them in any electronic mail, social networking or other communications' is, so far as I am aware, not one that has previously been made but in my judgment it does fall within the meaning of 'molestation'.
"In this case I conclude that order, and all the others sought on behalf of the mother (and children) are wholly justified."
Mr Justice Baker said the woman had told how she was raped after an argument which started because her husband thought that she was having an "intimate relationship" with a gym instructor.
The woman said he had continued to abuse, assault and occasionally rape - sometimes twice a day.
She had said her life and the lives of the daughters were subject to her husband's "stringent control".
It was alleged that the man had assaulted one of his daughters because she had "been in contact with a boy" - he had denied the allegation - and had "forcibly" cut another daughter's hair after she "misbehaved", said the judge.