A mother-of-four, Sarah Crossley-Weir, has expressed profound disillusionment and dismay following the lenient sentencing of her former partner, an Army colonel, who was found guilty of stalking her for several months. Her deep frustration stems from the perception that the distinguished military career of her stalker, Terry Southwood, may have unfairly influenced the court’s decision, allowing him to avoid a custodial sentence for a series of distressing and intrusive acts.

Ms. Crossley-Weir explicitly claims that Mr. Southwood’s decorated military background and a collection of glowing references were pivotal factors in the judge’s decision to hand down what she describes as a mere “slap on the wrists.” This alleged preferential treatment has ignited a public debate about whether high-profile individuals, particularly those with a history of public service, are held to the same legal standards as ordinary citizens.

The ordeal began after Ms. Crossley-Weir ended her five-year relationship with the 57-year-old retired Royal Army Medical Corps officer. Despite their separation, Mr. Southwood reportedly exhibited a reluctance to vacate their shared residence, setting the stage for a prolonged period of harassment that deeply impacted Ms. Crossley-Weir’s sense of security and well-being.

Over a period of six months, Mr. Southwood subjected his former partner to a campaign of escalating harassment and stalking. This included the insidious act of hiding a tracking device in the passenger seat of her vehicle, enabling him to monitor her movements surreptitiously. He also made multiple unsolicited appearances at her home and barraged her with an incessant stream of messages and unwanted floral deliveries.

Further compounding the victim’s distress were four anonymous typed poison-pen letters she received, each containing intimate details that only Mr. Southwood could have known. These menacing communications underscored the deeply personal and targeted nature of the stalking, culminating in his eventual guilty plea to an offence of stalking at Bournemouth Crown Court, which resulted in a five-year restraining order.

Despite the severity of his actions, Mr. Southwood benefited from his unblemished record prior to this incident, having no previous convictions and a 37-year career in the Army marked by “exemplary conduct.” Following his retirement, he secured employment with Leidos, a company specializing in technology and logistics, details that were likely presented as mitigating factors during his sentencing.

Judge Susan Evans ultimately imposed a 12-month community order on Mr. Southwood, requiring him to complete 120 hours of unpaid work and attend 25 rehabilitation days. Additionally, he was ordered to pay £500 in costs. This judicial outcome has been met with significant public scrutiny, particularly from the victim and her supporters, who feel it falls short of truly addressing the psychological harm inflicted.

Ms. Crossley-Weir unequivocally stated her profound disappointment with the legal system, articulating her belief that the verdict fails to send a clear or strong message to potential offenders. Her poignant assessment, “Don’t be a naughty boy, you have got a fabulous track record in the Army,” encapsulates her view that the punishment was disproportionately light given the gravity of the crime.

The case raises critical questions about judicial discretion and whether an individual’s past service, no matter how distinguished, should mitigate severe criminal behavior. While acknowledging the importance of recognizing military contributions, this incident serves as a stark reminder that no one should be considered above the law, regardless of their background or achievements, when it comes to personal accountability and justice.