A MAN who forwarded emails to his ex-wife while banned from contacting her has been urged to respect her wish to move on.

A non-molestation order was granted in April last year which prevents Ian Chambers, 55, from contacting the woman by any means.

He was sentenced for two breaches of the order at Workington Magistrates’ Court on Monday.

Outlining the case, prosecutor Pamela Fee said Chambers had forwarded an email to his ex-wife on November 29.

A further incident took place on December 13 when the woman received a further email from Chambers. She said she was so upset, she couldn’t read it.

A statement read to the court from the victim said she had hoped she would be able to move on with her life when the non-molestation order was put in place.

She said: “As soon as I saw the emails, I felt sick. It isn’t just this incident – it’s everything I was subjected to from Ian Chambers throughout our relationship.

“I’m emotionally drained. I can’t stop crying. I haven’t slept properly for a long time. My mind is in overdrive.

“My anxiety is so bad now, I won’t go anywhere alone. I’m scared Ian will turn up.

“I honestly thought the order would offer me some form of protection and I now question will I ever be free of Ian Chambers?”

The defendant told police he forwarded the emails to her and his intention was to keep her updated on relevant information.

Chambers, who was not legally represented, said: “I was in front of magistrates 12 months previous for allegations.

“I opted for crown court. A week before the case, I got a call that the prosecution couldn’t offer any evidence.

“I thought everything was dropped. I didn’t realise the non-molestation order was still in place.”

Passing sentence, Mark Gear, chair of the magistrates’ panel, said: “Bear in mind, before you press send, the implications of what that can do.

“Your former partner wants to move on. You have got to respect that wish.”

Chambers, of Springfield Grove, Whitehaven, was given a 12-month community order with 15 rehabilitation activity requirement days.

He was fined £473 and ordered to pay £85 costs and a £189 victim surcharge.