A FORMER helicopter pilot who defied the High Court by refusing to leave his home in the Eden Valley after a £6 million divorce battle has been told he must stay in jail.

Peter Elliott, 49, who spent years campaigning against redevelopment of Carlisle Airport, was locked up earlier this month amid a long-running saga surrounding his occupation of Pinewood House, near Appleby.

He had waged a four-year battle over the £500,000 farmhouse with his ex-wife, Leonie Butler. But despite a judge’s order that he get out so the property could be sold, he has refused to leave, barricading himself in.

Top judges later warned Elliott he would serve a six-month jail term if he continued to refuse to leave. He was eventually found to have put himself in clear breach of several court orders.

As a result, on November 7, Elliott was arrested at Pinewood House after police enforced the court order. The six-month sentence for contempt of court was triggered and he is currently in Durham prison.

At Carlisle Crown Court last Thursday, Elliott returned to Carlisle Crown Court and formally tried to overturn the finding that he was in contempt of court.

Mr Justice Davis listened as he made a 50-minute address from the dock,claiming he had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

He told the judge: "I am sorry for all the trouble this has caused. I am not a saint. I have tried to be a good person in society. I am not somebody who is contemptuous of the law process. I can guarantee you I am not going near Pinewood.”

After retiring to consider the case, Mr Justice Davis issued a written ruling, refusing Elliott's application.

The judge said: "Peter Elliott deliberately refused to comply with a perfectly clear order of the court over a long period," stated Mr Justice Davis, who noted that "many judges would have imposed a longer sentence".

"Peter Elliott argued that he was genuinely sorry for the trouble he had caused and that he was not contemptuous of the law. Thus, he said that he was contrite in respect of his breach of the relevant court order.

"I regret that this assertion is not supported by the repeated complaint that he had not had justice and that he had been forced into the position where he had acted in breach of the order to vacate Pinewood House.

Mr Justice Davis added: "I have to consider what would occur were he to be released early.

"Given all that has gone on before I consider it likely that he would return to the property if he were released from prison.

“Thus I am bound to conclude that further breach of the order for possession is likely."