A 66 year old Stroud man who carried on harassing a young hairdresser despite having a restraining order against him has walked free from court.

Paul Rice, of George Street, Stroud, pleaded guilty yesterday to breaching the restraining order imposed on 9th July last year by approaching the Harry Daniels Hair Salon, Stonehouse and staring at the woman, who is in her early twenties, on 7th November.

Judge Michael Cullum heard that Rice, who then lived in a flat opposite the salon, told police he had become 'obsessed' with the woman.

As well as having a previous conviction for harassing the hairdresser, Gloucester crown court heard that he had also engaged in 'identical behaviour towards a lady who worked in the Coventry Building Society just down the road.

Judge Cullum imposed a four month jail term suspended for eighteen months and told Rice: "Your victim is not the first. You need to make sure she is the last."

Prosecutor, David Maunder, said: "The complainant is in her early 20's. I do not have her precise age.

"She has worked at Harry Daniel's Hair Salon, Stonehouse for five years.

"After a year, she started to receive a lot of unwanted attention from a man across the road.

"From his flat above the opticians he can view into the shop."

Mr Maunder said her 'first encounter' with Rice was when she found a bunch of roses on her car.

A few weeks later, she found a bag of items including roses.

"She then received a message she found worrying," Mr Maunder said.

He said Rice would stand 'topless in his flat in front of her window staring at her.'

"He has regularly used binoculars. She finds his behaviour extremely intrusive and disturbing. It makes her working life very difficult.

"She has complained to the police many times."

On the day that Rice breached the restraining order, she saw him at 11am 'fiddling with his bins directly opposite'.

"The whole time he was messing about with his bins, he was starting, making eye contact and smirking at her," Mr Maunder said.

"He stopped and stared transfixed for 30 seconds."

"She was angry, upset and scared - Worried about walking to her car that night in the dark.

"The defendant then walked across the road to the front window. Staring and smirking.

"There was no obvious purpose to be there other than to stare at her from a close range.

"He looked over his shoulder and behind himself to continue staring at her as he walked past the shop."

The prosecutor described Rice's behaviour as 'contrived' and 'relentless'.

"He does not seem to care about court orders already in place," the barrister added.

"When he was interviewed by the police he admitted he had an obsession.

"He said he just liked looking at her. He accepted that he deliberately took the route he did take to look at her.

"He understood the attention he gave was unwanted and the effect it would have on her.

The woman made a statement that was read to the court: "This has made every day of my working life fearful and unsafe.

"It has happened since I was 17, I do not know where this will stop.

"Everyday I feel scared about what might happen.

"I am scared walking to my car.

"If he sees me in the salon by myself he may try to do something."

Defence lawyer, Matthew Harbinson, representing Rice, referred the judge to a mental health report prepared on his client that hinted at 'organic brain damage' and suggested a scan.

Mr Harbinson said he was at a loss to explain why his client offended as he did.

"He had no offending history prior to 2013.

"He then embarked on stalking behaviour."

Mr Harbinson said Rice had now moved out of Stonehouse to Stroud.

"He is now away from the area. There is no longer the temptation or risk of the juxtaposition between his address and her place of work.

"He is clearly going through a very difficult set of personal circumstances."

The court heard he has a 32 year old wife from The Gambia who had given birth to their son in January.

However, Rice's wife is now 'living in a refuge in Bath' and he had not seen his son.

The lawyer continued saying Rice 'made the most startling admissions in police interview'.

"Frequently it is the case that people try at every given moment to dilute the actions," Mr Harbinson said.

"He has been open and honest, but what he has not been able to do is to provide any sort of insight or analysis why he has engaged in this behaviour knowing the implications.

"It could be unjust to send a 66 year old man to custody.

"He has a physical disability, which has ended a lifetime in employment.

"I have read the report from the community mental health team, and work will take place whatever the outcome of these proceedings.

"It is hoped he will get himself well, and to have insight to his behaviour."

Mr Harbinson said the offending was 'confined to a very brief period of his life'.

"Now at the age of 66 he finds himself before the crown court for the first time," the lawyer said urging a further suspended sentence.

Imposing the suspended jail term, the judge said: "You caused huge misery to her, putting your obsession with her over her well-being,

"She is entitled to feel safe where she worked.

"Each day, and this has been going on for years, she did not feel safe because of you.

"There is no suggestion you would have hurt her, but that would have been her fear because of your strange and obsessive behaviour.

"You did damage her, concern her.

"She must feel enormous relief that you no longer live opposite with the daily opportunity to harm her.

"You have moved out of Stonehouse and that is the most important thing.

"That with an order not to enter the town is what will give her protection.

"You have chosen to give in to your obsession. To loiter and stare. Even when subject to an order.

"Breach of an order is always serious, punishable with five years.

"The actions were pretty limited over a short period of time.

"Loitering, but it is the back catalogue of what you have already done that makes it more serious.

"The effect on your victim is taken into account.

"This was a deliberate breach, you knew what you were doing.

"The starting point when you commit an offence on a suspended sentence is that you go to prison, unless it is unjust in all the circumstances.

"I am prepared today to look at this pragmatically.

"Something has gone on in your life to throw it in to turmoil. You have become a pest, you have become a nuisance.

"You worry about what is going on in your brain. So do I.

"The only other explanation is that you have engaged in a path of self destruction.

"You need those tests to get further help.

"You have lost your home and had to move.

"You are not going back to Stonehouse any time soon," the judge said.

"Because of the minimal nature I will deal with it by further suspended sentence, and I will fine you.

"She is not the first. You need to make sure she is the last

"Forever and a day you cannot have contact with her. She is gone," the judge said imposing a fresh restraining order until further notice.

"For five years you are not to go to or enter the town of Stonehouse.

"If you breach that, it becomes a persistent deliberate breach.

"Those sentences are measured in years.

"Remember you do not go anywhere near Stonehouse, and get the medical help suggested.

"If you come back to the crown court you will go to prison.

I am going to reserve breaches of this to myself. I will remember this case. Please do not come back," the judge warned Rice.

Alongside the suspended sentence Rice was ordered to pay £300 in financial penalties.