Burglar stole underwear from house

Burglar stole underwear from Pantside house appeared at Newport Magistrate's Court

Burglar stole underwear from Pantside house appeared at Newport Magistrate's Court

First published in Gwent news
Last updated
by

A BURGLAR who stole underwear from his female victim and left a pair of pants on a fence as he escaped has been jailed.

Connor Greenslade, 19, of Griffin Park Court, Porthcawl, appeared in Newport Crown Court on Friday charged with two counts of burglary. He had previously appeared at Newport Magistrate's Court where he pleaded guilty.

Recorder Malcolm Bishop heard Greenslade burgled his victim’s house, in Pantside, Newbridge, on two occasions and attempted to burgle it on a third occasion.

The court heard that on January 11 the victim had secured her property and left to stay with a friend.

But when she returned on the January 12, a window had been smashed. She found items missing, including scented candles and underwear. She told police her bedroom had been searched and it looked as though someone had spent the night there, the court heard.

Police investigated and found fingerprints matching Greenslade. The second burglary took place on March 8, when the woman received a call telling her house had been broken into. She returned to find the same window smashed, underwear missing, muddy footprints leading to her bedroom and an underwear cupboard damaged. The court heard a neighbour had seen Greenslade leaving and recognised him, shouting : “Connor, I’m going to call the police”, but the defendant climbed over a fence and ran off, leaving a ladies’ underwear on the fence.

The recorder heard about an attempted burglary at the house on February 2, when he threw rock through the window, before the alarm went off and he ran.

The court heard after the incident on March 8, Greenslade called police and handed himself in.

In interview he told them he had been under the influence of alcohol and mephedrone but when he had ‘come down’ he felt an overwhelming sense of guilt.

The victim’s impact statement said she felt there was ‘something sinister’ about the stealing of underwear.

The recorder told Greenslade: “As a result of what you did your victim has suffered more than is ordinary.” Greenslade was sentenced to one year in prison and handed a restraining order preventing him from contacting the victim or attending her place of work.

Comments (9)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:09am Mon 9 Jun 14

Mervyn James says...

Exchange is no robbery lol....
Exchange is no robbery lol.... Mervyn James
  • Score: -6

10:14am Mon 9 Jun 14

pwharley says...

It's fortunate he didn't steal other underwear, otherwise we might have to rename the location Braside!
It's fortunate he didn't steal other underwear, otherwise we might have to rename the location Braside! pwharley
  • Score: -7

11:14am Mon 9 Jun 14

KarloMarko says...

I can see one this being directly lifted by the Daily Mail website!

He went in underhand, he was in a tights spot, he began to pant, it was the middle of the nightie....
I can see one this being directly lifted by the Daily Mail website! He went in underhand, he was in a tights spot, he began to pant, it was the middle of the nightie.... KarloMarko
  • Score: -5

1:54pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

One assumes the householder was a former cohabitant or similar, for had it been a "stranger" crime 6 months in prison for doing it 3 times would be outrageous. Sorry, just re-read it and see it is a relationship breakdown case. Still an incredibly lenient sentence, suggesting the Judge felt the impact on the victim was minimal.
PS mothers, if you want your sons to aim low in life and invariably fail-call them Connor.
One assumes the householder was a former cohabitant or similar, for had it been a "stranger" crime 6 months in prison for doing it 3 times would be outrageous. Sorry, just re-read it and see it is a relationship breakdown case. Still an incredibly lenient sentence, suggesting the Judge felt the impact on the victim was minimal. PS mothers, if you want your sons to aim low in life and invariably fail-call them Connor. Dai Rear
  • Score: -2

2:51pm Mon 9 Jun 14

-trigg- says...

Dai Rear wrote:
One assumes the householder was a former cohabitant or similar, for had it been a "stranger" crime 6 months in prison for doing it 3 times would be outrageous. Sorry, just re-read it and see it is a relationship breakdown case. Still an incredibly lenient sentence, suggesting the Judge felt the impact on the victim was minimal. PS mothers, if you want your sons to aim low in life and invariably fail-call them Connor.
Unless the article has been updated I must be missing the part where it mentions any previous relationship with the victim.

Didn't we have new anti-stalking legislation introduced fairly, complete with "tougher" sentences recently which would appear to be applicable in this case?
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: One assumes the householder was a former cohabitant or similar, for had it been a "stranger" crime 6 months in prison for doing it 3 times would be outrageous. Sorry, just re-read it and see it is a relationship breakdown case. Still an incredibly lenient sentence, suggesting the Judge felt the impact on the victim was minimal. PS mothers, if you want your sons to aim low in life and invariably fail-call them Connor.[/p][/quote]Unless the article has been updated I must be missing the part where it mentions any previous relationship with the victim. Didn't we have new anti-stalking legislation introduced fairly, complete with "tougher" sentences recently which would appear to be applicable in this case? -trigg-
  • Score: 5

3:01pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

Look, if he'd burgled the house and checked out where his victim worked it would be so sinister that no sane judge-and Malcolm Bishop is a wise old bird, would have given him less than 6. Put the neighbour knowing who he is, with the fact he knows the place of work, and you get a failed relationship, don't you? The clincher is that you don't burgle a house for penny-annie stuff you could get for tuppence in a charity shop, do you?
Burglary dwelling is the right charge (well done CPS) because of the 14 year maximum as against 5 max for violent harassment.
Look, if he'd burgled the house and checked out where his victim worked it would be so sinister that no sane judge-and Malcolm Bishop is a wise old bird, would have given him less than 6. Put the neighbour knowing who he is, with the fact he knows the place of work, and you get a failed relationship, don't you? The clincher is that you don't burgle a house for penny-annie stuff you could get for tuppence in a charity shop, do you? Burglary dwelling is the right charge (well done CPS) because of the 14 year maximum as against 5 max for violent harassment. Dai Rear
  • Score: -8

3:23pm Mon 9 Jun 14

PantResident says...

There was no relationship between the victim and the criminal. He was a "gardener" who lives in her street not in Porthcawl that's all a scam for his mother not paying council tax! He's the person who smashed a guys skull in outside Treowen shop a couple of years ago. This sentence is far too short and very overdue!
There was no relationship between the victim and the criminal. He was a "gardener" who lives in her street not in Porthcawl that's all a scam for his mother not paying council tax! He's the person who smashed a guys skull in outside Treowen shop a couple of years ago. This sentence is far too short and very overdue! PantResident
  • Score: 12

3:34pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

PantResident wrote:
There was no relationship between the victim and the criminal. He was a "gardener" who lives in her street not in Porthcawl that's all a scam for his mother not paying council tax! He's the person who smashed a guys skull in outside Treowen shop a couple of years ago. This sentence is far too short and very overdue!
Thanks. Guessed wrong. Sorry. What a pity the article was written in the way it was, rather than your clear description of what happened. It IS a stranger crime then and the sentence is derisory and insulting to the victim.
[quote][p][bold]PantResident[/bold] wrote: There was no relationship between the victim and the criminal. He was a "gardener" who lives in her street not in Porthcawl that's all a scam for his mother not paying council tax! He's the person who smashed a guys skull in outside Treowen shop a couple of years ago. This sentence is far too short and very overdue![/p][/quote]Thanks. Guessed wrong. Sorry. What a pity the article was written in the way it was, rather than your clear description of what happened. It IS a stranger crime then and the sentence is derisory and insulting to the victim. Dai Rear
  • Score: -3

9:06pm Mon 9 Jun 14

arjwain says...

fair enough ...but i seen a police crime program 4 teens burgled a sting house ..a house set up to be burgled .. as there was a spate in that area ,the 4 boys went to court they was released .i guess for the next 2 years they must be good boys ..burglary should carry the same sentence more if the house is occupied at the time ,,
not different depending on the judge .
burglary should be 10 years
rape life
knife crime 10
robbery 10
taking of life you lose yours .
simples
fair enough ...but i seen a police crime program 4 teens burgled a sting house ..a house set up to be burgled .. as there was a spate in that area ,the 4 boys went to court they was released .i guess for the next 2 years they must be good boys ..burglary should carry the same sentence more if the house is occupied at the time ,, not different depending on the judge . burglary should be 10 years rape life knife crime 10 robbery 10 taking of life you lose yours . simples arjwain
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree