THE alleged threats to kill by a man living in Pembrokeshire to Surrey Police officers was a cry for help, a jury heard today.
Steven James Delahunty, 50, of Wetgate Hill, Pembroke, was on trial at Swansea Crown Court for two charges of sending communications threatening to kill police officers.
Tom Scapins, prosecuting, told the court that on April 8, 2022, Delahunty sent 10 voicemail messages to the office of the police and crime commissioner at Surrey Police complaining about their treatment of him, after he had made allegations of historical child abuse.
Three of the voicemail messages were played in court after a statement from Sarah Gordon, who works as an assistant to the commissioner and who received the messages over a 30-minute period, with the first at 8.05am and the final message at 8.32am.
The first voicemail played out hears Delahunty stating that he had been abused as a child, and showing his frustration at the lack of help by the police force. He ends the message stating he would have to do ‘serious stuff.’
The second voicemail played out, was the ninth to be left by Delahunty. He says he is ‘more calm’ than he was in previous messages. He also stated that when he spoke to the police, they ‘joined in the abuse,’ saying he was contemplating killing or executing police officers and had ‘a right to speak the way I have spoken.’
In the final voicemail played to the court, he says “I do not want to take any police life, but the reality is that basically I am now being abused by the police.”
The jury then heard a number of tweets that were sent by Delahunty under the Twitter account Astroparadizo on August 9, in which he tagged both Surrey Police and the commissioner Gavin Stephen.
In the tweets he wrote: “If I had an automatic rifle, I would be at Surrey Police headquarters in Guildford to shoot police officers” and “if I want to go to Surrey and execute Surrey police officer in an act of defiance then I can.”
The court heard witness statements on how officers tried to reach out via social media private messages to Delahunty, but received no reply.
They contacted Dyfed-Powys Police, who went to Delahunty’s home the same day and arrested him, executing a search warrant and seizing two mobile phones and a laptop.
MORE NEWS:
During his interview, he admitted that he sent the voicemails and tweets, but denied that he intended to cause distress or anxiety.
Investigating officer Huw Adams asked Delahunty during the interview why he left the messages, to which Delahunty responded that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time.
He explained about the historical abuse situation that he felt he had not been responded to correctly by the force, and had reported the abuse in 2017, which led to a phone call in early January 2018 from a Surrey police officer saying he slept with his sister - something that had been said by his sister years earlier, but she had apologised for making it up.
When asked if he could remember making the calls, he said no, but said he was glad he heard them, because it was him.
When asked what he meant by ‘serious stuff’ in the first voicemail, he said: “We are dealing with a human being and I am in a very bad place.”
He said it was a cry for help, before saying “if you take words said in black and white, we can see I said that.
“The words that I said are colourful. They are severe and I am asking for help,” he added.
He said how, being on benefits, he does not have a car, and he would have to travel 250 miles if he would have intended to carry out the threats, which he did not intend to do.
When asked if he intended to cause distress or anxiety, he said no, and he also said that he did not believe that the person receiving the messages would be caused anxiety because they are ‘police and have heard worse.’
In relation to the tweets, he said how he never intended to carry out the threats and they were a cry for help for them to do something.
Delahunty, who is defending himself, took to the stand to provide his own evidence. He stated that he had a breakthrough in 2020 with discussing the case with someone from the Professional Standards Agency, but after she went on annual leave, he had heard nothing, even after her date of return.
He said how he would call every month for 10 months asking what was going on with the case and directly contacted the force again, when he was told to not contact as it had been passed to the Professional Standards Agency and he felt like he was back at square one.
During his evidence, he made clear that everything was directed at Surrey Police and that when he was dealing with Dyfed-Powys Police, he was ‘treated with respect and dignity.’
He stated that he didn’t believe anyone was caused distress or anxiety by his messages because if they had been anxious. They wouldn’t have waited four months after the voicemails to have him arrested, stating the force were waiting for him to say he was going to kill himself.
When cross-examined by Mr Scapins, he denied that anyone seeing the tweets believed he would carry it out, saying that only the people who were allowed to see it could see it.
He also denied that the threats were intentional threats as he said “If” in relation to the rifle, and that he did not have one.
His Honour Judge Huw Rees then addressed the jury, allowing them to leave early, stating they had to return tomorrow – Friday, February 24 – where he would sum the case up and allow them to retire to consider their verdicts.
The case continues.
We passionately believe in the value of good, trusted journalism. If you share that belief, you can experience the benefits of unlimited advert-light news access from journalists you know and trust on your favourite devices - subscribe today HERE.
With a digital subscription you will experience up to 80% less advertising, this means faster loading pages and ultimately a much better user experience. You can also sign up for our free daily newsletters HERE.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article