Annika Sands ‘couldn’t accept that their relationship was over’ and stalked her victim for almost a year
A woman has landed in court for stalking and harassing a man she met via a dating app.
Annika Sands met Bradley McCreath in September 2021 where the pair had a “short lived” relationship which “lasted a matter of weeks”.
However, Liverpool Crown Court heard Sands “couldn’t accept that their relationship was over” and went on subject him to a campaign of “entrenched and obsessive behaviour” over the course of nearly a year where she stalked and harassed him across the Wirral in her gold BMW.
Sands was reportedly “angered” when the man started a new relationship and went on to harass the couple at Cheshire Oaks. The pair were even forced to flee their homes over fears for their safety, Liverpool Echo reports.
The 41-year-old had previously been handed a “warning” in the form of a court order after being reported to police by three other men who she had short term relationships with.
Arthur Gibson, prosecuting, told the court on Thursday: “While he made it clear that he was not looking for any form of long term relationship, Ms Sands wanted that relationship to develop. As a result, he ended it. She, however, was not prepared to accept that.”
Sands’ behaviour then led to Mr McCreath making an initial report to police in November of that year, although no further action was ultimately taken against her at this stage. But the 41-year-old, of Alfred Road in Birkenhead, was then subjected to a stalking protection order in January 2022 following complaints by three other men who she had short term relationships with.
Mr Gibson told the court: “By the end of January 2022, it must have been abundantly clear to Ms Sands what behaviour constituted stalking and that, when relationships ended, they ended. Mr McCreath did not want anything further to do with her.”
While “matters quietened down” for the next few months, he then bumped into Sands in a Morrisons Daily store near to his home in Upton on May 15, at which stage he “ignored her and ignored a message she sent him that night”. A week later, he was then visiting his parents in Irby and, upon leaving, was sitting in his parked car at around 12.45am when the defendant drove past him in her gold-coloured BMW M4, which bore a “distinctive” personalised number plate.
Having set off in his car, Sands then overtook Mr McCreath on Thingwall Road after “clearly turning around and driving after him”. He was subsequently travelling along Manor Drive when his ex again drove towards and past him while flashing her headlights.
‘Dropping off a friend’
Later the same day, Mr McCreath went shopping at Sainsbury’s in Upton before returning to his car and finding Sands parked next to him. She subsequently claimed that she had also been in the store and, having seen his vehicle while leaving, decided to wait outside for him.
Sands went on to state that she had been “dropping a friend off” the previous evening before repeatedly asking what his plans were. She was then said to have liked his picture on dating app Hinge on June 3 before he later saw her sitting in her car while he once again drove down Manor Drive.
Ten minutes later, Sands arrived at Mr McCreath’s home address holding her dog, at which stage she began “banging on his door and asking him questions about his personal life”. She then refused to leave despite repeated requests from him and his neighbours, whom she “stood smiling at” before eventually walking back to her car after being warned that the police would be called.
Another incident followed when Mr McCreath went for a walk with his personal trainer at Leasowe Beach, where Sands “chose to walk in front of him” before asking “are you going to call your parents again?” As he was later returning to his car, he spotted her driving away before turning around and returning to beside his vehicle, at which stage he “told her to stop harassing him and to f*** off”.
But Mr Gibson detailed how “matters escalated” further in the summer of 2022 when Mr McCreath began a new relationship with Corinne Roberts, adding: “It is clear that the defendant was angered by this. She also turned her attentions to Ms Roberts.”
This was said to have led to an incident at Cheshire Oaks Designer Outlet in Ellesmere Port in October of that year, when the couple were having a coffee at Pret-a-Manger on a table beside the window when Sands walked past. Upon leaving the premises, they “deliberately walked in the opposite direction” to that which his former partner had taken, although she then “walked past them, staring”.
Days later, Sands sent Ms Roberts a friend request on social media and was said to have searched for her former address using computer systems at Scottish Power, where she was then employed. However, she claims to have done so solely for work related purposes.
Sands was also said to have driven past Mr McCreath and Ms Roberts while “smirking” on Manor Drive on another occasion before “matters really worsened” in the New Year, beginning with her placing a call from an unknown number to the latter on January 25, 2023. While she “had no idea how the defendant managed to get her number”, she was then walking her dog near to her home, also in Upton, seven days later when “the defendant drove past her, staring”.
Two nights later, Mr McCreath was staying at Ms Roberts’ house when Sands was again seen driving around nearby streets. She was ultimately arrested on February 7, at which stage her phone was found to contain details of her ex-boyfriend’s phone numbers and social media accounts, as well as those of his family members and friends.
‘There is expressed remorse’
Sands was meanwhile evidenced to have searched for Mr McCreath’s car registration on Cazoo and looked up Ms Roberts’ past and present employers, as well as downloading pictures of her from social media. While there was said to have been a “strong suspicion” that she had placed a tracking device on her former partner’s vehicle, there was ultimately said to be “no actual evidence to support the allegation”.
Mr Gibson added: “As a result of this, both felt compelled to leave their homes. Ms Roberts owned her property and had an emotional attachment to it, because she inherited it from her late father. She has had to move well out of the area. She does not feel safe.”
Of the impact on Mr McCreath, Mr Gibson said: “Effectively, his whole working and social life was affected. He gave up the gym. His relationship with his father deteriorated. She would often appear at places where they were working.
“It was persistent over a long period. There were, we say, elements of planning and elements designed to cause distress. Clearly, very serious distress was caused to both victims. They have both had to make considerable changes to their lifestyles to avoid contact.”
Sands has no previous convictions. Keith Sutton, defending, said that the interactions between her and Mr McCreath and Ms Roberts in public were “chance encounters”, adding: “There is expressed remorse.
“There has now been three-and-a-half years since the last of these incidents. Gladly, for everybody, there has been no reported occurrence for a considerable period of time. This offending is now some considerable time ago. She is in full time employment.
“A suspended sentence here can properly mark these offences. It can provide a deterrent in order to prevent any further lapse. Even if she were to accidentally see Mr McCreath or Ms Roberts, she would know immediately to head in the other direction. By marking it in that way, this would be her first and last appearance in the crown court.”
Sands admitted two counts of stalking causing serious alarm and distress. Appearing in the dock wearing glasses and a black jacket over a blue shirt, she was handed an 18-month imprisonment suspended for two years and restraining orders banning her from contacting Mr McCreath and Ms Roberts for six years.
With Sands said to have a monthly income of £3,000 but expenditure of £2,907 due to debts totalling £16,000, she was told to pay court costs of £700 at a rate of £50 per month. Sentencing, Judge Anil Murray said: “I am told you had warnings in the past about your behaviour, which meant that you should have known better. I make it clear that I treat you as someone of previous good character.
“You could not accept that the relationship was over, and you misbehaved towards him in a significant way. He then formed a new relationship. You clearly felt jealousy towards her. She was in a relationship with the person that you wanted be in a relationship with. She was entirely an innocent party in all of this. Your behaviour towards her was worrying and lasted for about four months.
“It is made clear that some meetings were by chance, but you went on to make use of those meetings by harassing the complainants. Your actions in each case significantly affected your victims.
“Bradley McCreath says that what you did affected his quality of every day life. He was constantly on edge. He stopped going to the gym and became isolated from friends and family. Importantly, both felt it necessary to move house because of your actions. This was persistent over a long period. You intended to cause a lot distress.
“You could have accepted your guilt much earlier. Still, I have made a reduction for the delay. References say that there is a different side of you when not jealous, and you support and are kind to your friends and neighbours and are respectful and friendly. I am told that you express remorse.
“I accept that there is a reasonable prospect of rehabilitation, given you have been out of trouble for some time now. This is a case where I am able, just, to suspend the sentence, but you need to take great care.
“This was entrenched and obsessive behaviour. Restraining orders of significant length are needed to give you an incentive to stay away from the complainants. The principle necessity is to make sure this stops for good and that the complainants feel safe again.
“If you contact them in the next two years, you will be in breach of this order. It is almost certain that you will have this sentence activated. If you contact them in the next six years, you will be breaching the restraining orders, which is highly likely to result in an immediate prison sentence.”
You must be logged in to post a comment Login