A PENSIONER, who posted comments on the Argus website and thereby breaching a restraining order in place for a victim of domestic violence, has avoided an immediate jail term.

Victor Gordon Nathaniel Griffiths, 72, of Ward Close, Newport appeared at Cwmbran Magistrates Court on Thursday, after pleading guilty to one count of harassment – breaching of a restraining order on conviction.

The court heard that Griffiths posted comments on an article about Rachel Court, also known as Rachel Williams, dated February 5.

Prosecuting, Rob Simpkins said that Griffiths had previously breached the restraining order, which was first activated on July 5, 2016.

“He has breached that order in the past, on July 21, 2016. He breached it again in July 2016,” said Mr Simpkins.

“There is a history of him breaching this order.”

The court heard that Griffiths posted five comments on the online article between February 5 and 6, before his arrest on February 14.

“He wanted to put across his side of the story,” said Mr Simpkins, reading aloud a number of the comments to the court.

He added it would be “inconceivable” that Mr Griffiths would not have had the concept of ‘until further notice’ explained to him after his previous order breaches.

He added that the 72-year-old has seven convictions for 13 offences, with three of those convictions relating to breaches of the restraining order.

Defending, Paul Philpott said that Griffiths, a second cousin of Ms Williams’ former husband, pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and was aware of his own right to free speech.

“The right of free speech – that is what we have in his country,” said Mr Philpott.

“The Argus encourages people to put comments on the article

“They have a right to free speech.

“My client’s right to free speech has been curtailed as a result of the restraining order. He accepts that.

“He cannot make comments about this lady.

“That right to fair speech has been restrained.”

Mr Philpott added that Griffiths did not want to use the case as a “platform to get his side across” and thought his order had ended alongside an old sentence.

“He thought his restraining order has come to an end,” he said, adding the 72-year-old father-of-nine was aware that he was not allowed to be part of conversations on this topic any more.

“He cannot be a part of it. He knows the seriousness of the matter he is facing.

“He knows he cannot be involved in this matter. It may be killing him inside, burning him up.”

Concluding, magistrates Sian Hodges and Barbara Williams warned Griffiths about further breaches of the restraining order, but decided against immediate jail.

“Had it not been for your early guilty plea and the mitigation advanced by your solicitor, it would have been a custodial sentence forthwith,” said Mrs Hodges.

“However, we are going to suspend a prison sentence.”

Mr Griffiths received a term of 20 weeks suspended for 24 months and must pay £200 in total - a victim surcharge of £115 and costs of £85.

“This restraining order remains indefinitely,” added the judge, highlighting Mr Griffiths’ third breach of the restraining since July 2016 and any further breaches would result in imprisonment.