We've all left something at an ex's house that we've desperately wanted to get back once the relationship was over. But one woman ended up risking time in prison to retrieve a pair of Calvin Harris tickets from her ex boyfriend, a court in Scotland has heard.
Sinead Lovie, 22, from Perth, had a ban on contacting her ex-boyfriend, Michael O'Brien. But she violated the ban when she text her ex asking for her friend Lucy's tickets to an upcoming Calvin Harris concert, which were believed to be in his possession at the time.
Explaining her friend 'needed' the tickets, Lovie text O'Brien: "Hope you’re happy with yourself. Lucy needs those tickets. Give them to her. I don’t care about mine."
Advert
Following the message, Perth Sheriff Court heard how O'Brien reported the breach to the police on 2 July, the same day Calvin Harris was due to perform at Hampden Park National Stadium in Glasgow.
The concert marked the DJ's first home country gig in over six years, with ticket prices ranging from £41.70 - £73.10.
The star had last played in Scotland when he headlined T in the Park festival weekend back in July 2016.
After O'Brien had reported the incident, police were sent to Lovie's home to investigate. When police arrived at Lovie's address to ask her about the message, the court heard how she explained she had 'panicked and texted him'. She had told them: "Is this about Lucy’s tickets?
"I texted Michael. I panicked and texted him."
Defending solicitor Paul Ralph said of the incident: "Calvin Harris tickets were the hot topic. The friend, Lucy, was expecting them as a birthday gift.
"Having left the house she was seeking to recover both of the tickets and post them on to her friend."
In sending the message to O'Brien, Lovie admitted to breaching bail, which in Scotland - without a reasonable excuse for doing so - could result in a maximum of 12 months time in prison.
However, after taking into account all of the facts surrounding the breach, Sheriff James Macdonald ruled it would be 'disproportionate' to impose a non-harassment order.
"The essence of this offence is a single electronic communication. In light of that, I am going to defer sentence," he said.
"Having heard the facts I take the view that it would be disproportionate to impose a non-harassment order."
Lucy Devine