Man who sent threatening videos to children’s services staff sentenced

A man, whose son was placed for adoption, has been given a suspended prison sentence for a long-running campaign of threatening behaviour towards children’s services staff and social workers.

Kaine Hancock was given two concurrent six month sentences, to be suspended for 15 months, after he breached an order that barred him from “harassing” social services staff at Suffolk County Council. The case was heard at the Royal Courts of Justice on 22 July.

Threatening DVD

The court heard Hancock’s son was placed for adoption two years ago, while the child was the responsibility of Suffolk County Council.

The man sent a DVD to the council in February 2014, warning them he was “coming for [his son]”. The DVD included clips of people who were bound and gagged, one of whom had a gun to his head.

A court order was made in April 2014, banning Hancock from assaulting, threatening, intimidating, harassing or pestering staff working at the local authority.

This included further sharing the content of the DVD, or contacting local authority staff in any way except through a solicitor.

Accusations

In May 2014 he breached the order, sending another DVD in which he accused social services staff of lying. He also posted the video on YouTube.

For this, and for being abusive to a social services manager from the council during a hearing, he was given a three month custodial sentence in July 2014.

After five weeks he successfully applied to purge his contempt by apologising and promising not to breach the order in the future.

However, six months later, he posted a link to the second video on the Facebook page of an MP. He also used threatening language to an assistant of the MP, who gave evidence, telling her he would “get a man to come to [her] office and sort [her] out”.

History of contempt

President of the Family Court Division, Sir James Munby, found Hancock to be in contempt of court, noting his previous contempts as an aggravating feature.

Munby told the court he found Hancock’s actions understandable and that many parents in his situation would feel “very strongly and very passionately,” but that this did not mitigate his behaviour against the local authority staff and others involved in the case.