A MAN who consistently breached court orders and asked police to send him to prison has had his appeal against the length of his sentence rejected.

Samuel Vincent Rolfe, of no fixed abode, was sent to a young offenders’ institution for six months after he admitted breaching a criminal behaviour order last month.

It was the third time he had breached the order, which prevented him from attending his mother’s address, within two weeks.

Winchester Crown Court was told today that the order was designed to “protect everybody else from the ongoing use of police resources, and the complete waste of police time you use up day after day, week after week”.

Prosecutor Tom Wright told the court about the numerous occasions officers had been called to the premises, on Taverner Close, often when the defendant would be attempting to kick doors down, throwing bottles or rocks at the window, and on one occasion threatening to “write the house off”.

Another incident was described, where police attended and moved Rolfe on, only for him to return five minutes later.

“He is a troubled young man,” Mr Wright said, “there were four breaches of the restraining order, and this was a third breach of the criminal behaviour order that had been imposed only a few weeks before this matter.”

But the 20-year-old had instructed his solicitor to appeal the six-month custodial sentence imposed by magistrates in July, saying that starting point was too high.

Ann-Marie Talbot told the court that as he pleaded guilty on the first occasion, he was entitled to a discount on his sentence of a third, adding: “In my submission, a nine-month starting point was too high. Perhaps a starting point of six months would have been more correct.

“It must be recognised that Mr Rolfe aged [20], is a person of particularly vulnerable qualities.”

She said that he has ADHD, was “emotionally challenged” and also has learning difficulties.

“It is a sad fact that many families have to live with young people that face these difficulties, and find themselves in the position where they are unable to cope by themselves,” she continued.

“On this particular breach, it was Samuel Rolfe himself that telephoned police 10 times, effectively saying ‘come and arrest me I want to go to prison’.

“He got what he wanted, he went to prison. He has had a shock about what prison is really like, and I think his attitude has certainly adjusted.

“The reason for this appeal against sentence is not that Samuel Rolfe did not deserve a custodial sentence.”

But Recorder Daniel Sawyer, sitting alongside two lay magistrates, said that “if anything [the sentence] was lenient”, but decided not to increase his sentence.

“Ms Talbot has asked us to find that the magistrates taking nine months as a starting point was too high.

“We find that even if mitigation outweighs aggravating factors, they certainly do not reduce it to below nine months.”

The six-month custodial sentence will remain in place.