Featured

Hampshire neighbours ‘spat, shot and threw dog poo’ at pensioner, 84, in ‘campaign of terror’

An 84-year-old woman has secured a partial victory in the High Court after years of “violent attacks and intimidation” from her neighbours

In what’s been branded a “campaign of terror”, neighbours allegedly spat, shot and threw dog poo at Yvonne Hayes.


Mrs Hayes, from Liss in Hampshire, was granted an interim anti-harassment injunction against 76-year-old Peter Overton following her ordeal in Liss, where properties fetch around £1million.

However, the pensioner’s requests for further injunctions on behalf of her forestry company and against co-defendant Ian Brodrick, 64, were dismissed.

The dispute started in 2016 over contested rights to a track in the affluent neighbourhood, according to court proceedings.

Mrs Hayes told the court how she had been subjected to multiple physical assaults since the boundary dispute began.

She alleged that in December 2024, Mr Overton “pushed me from behind, and caused me to fall onto my left side”.

“He further assaulted me by kicking me in the groin area,” she told the court.

Liss, Hampshire

Yvonne Hayes endured ‘violent attacks and intimidation’ at her home in Liss (pictured), the court heard

|

GOOGLE

The pensioner claimed another incident in March 2023 involving Ian Brodrick, 64, left her requiring hospital treatment.

“He swung out his arm to forcefully strike me across the back of my head causing me to fall to the ground,” she said.

She said the alleged attack left her with sprained wrists and forced her to undergo brain scans.

Ms Hayes also Mr Overton of firing a shotgun over her property and spitting at her.

NEIGHBOUR ROWS – READ MORE:

She also claimed she was kicked in the groin – and has accused one or both of the men of “throwing dog faeces” onto her property.

The defendants have denied her claims.

Their lawyer Nicholas Leviseur said: “Mrs Hayes is not telling the truth and is doing what she generally does when she is crossed, which is to throw allegations of great seriousness against others so that they give way and do her bidding.”

Mr Brodrick was previously cleared of assault charges by magistrates following a 2018 incident where Hayes claimed “he pushed me to the ground and kicked me twice”.

The defendants’ lawyers claim both Mrs Hayes and employees of Hayes Forestry Ltd conducted their own campaign of harassment, including “firing an air rifle” at Mr Overton.

Hayes has denied these counter-allegations.

Royal Courts of Justice

A High Court judge has encouraged all parties to pursue an out-of-court settlement

|

PA

High Court judge Mr Justice Jay described the case as “a tragedy” involving neighbours who “dislike each other to the greatest possible degree”.

While granting the interim injunction against Mr Overton, who was absent from proceedings due to illness, Justice Jay found insufficient evidence to support similar orders for Hayes’s business or against Mr Brodrick.

The specifics of the injunction remain to be finalised by the parties’ legal representatives or determined by judicial decision if consensus cannot be achieved.

The matter will return to court to determine whether the injunction should be maintained and in what form, whilst the underlying boundary dispute is scheduled for county court proceedings next year.

The judge encouraged all parties to pursue an out-of-court settlement.

Source link

Related Posts

On April 12, 2021, a Knoxville police officer shot and killed an African American male student in a bathroom at Austin-East High School. The incident caused social unrest, and community members began demanding transparency about the shooting, including the release of the officer’s body camera video. On the evening of April 19, 2021, the Defendant and a group of protestors entered the Knoxville City-County Building during a Knox County Commission meeting. The Defendant activated the siren on a bullhorn and spoke through the bullhorn to demand release of the video. Uniformed police officers quickly escorted her and six other individuals out of the building and arrested them for disrupting the meeting. The court upheld defendants’ conviction for “disrupting a lawful meeting,” defined as “with the intent to prevent [a] gathering, … substantially obstruct[ing] or interfere[ing] with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action or verbal utterance.” Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that the Defendant posted on Facebook the day before the meeting and the day of the meeting that the protestors were going to “shut down” the meeting. During the meeting, the Defendant used a bullhorn to activate a siren for approximately twenty seconds. Witnesses at trial described the siren as “loud,” “high-pitched,” and “alarming.” Commissioner Jay called for “Officers,” and the Defendant stated through the bullhorn, “Knox County Commission, your meeting is over.” Commissioner Jay tried to bring the meeting back into order by banging his gavel, but the Defendant continued speaking through the bullhorn. Even when officers grabbed her and began escorting her out of the Large Assembly Room, she continued to disrupt the meeting by yelling for the officers to take their hands off her and by repeatedly calling them “murderers.” Commissioner Jay called a ten-minute recess during the incident, telling the jury that it was “virtually impossible” to continue the meeting during the Defendant’s disruption. The Defendant herself testified that the purpose of attending the meeting was to disrupt the Commission’s agenda and to force the Commission to prioritize its discussion on the school shooting. Although the duration of the disruption was about ninety seconds, the jury was able to view multiple videos of the incident and concluded that the Defendant substantially obstructed or interfered with the meeting. The evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction. Defendant also claimed the statute was “unconstitutionally vague as applied to her because the statute does not state that it includes government meetings,” but the appellate court concluded that she had waived the argument by not raising it adequately below. Sean F. McDermott, Molly T. Martin, and Franklin Ammons, Assistant District Attorneys General, represent the state.

From State v. Every, decided by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals…

1 of 80