Haribo Tangfastics: Solicitor left them as Easter present for ex-girlfriend
A City solicitor found guilty of a low-level offence of stalking his ex-girlfriend has been suspended from the profession for six months.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found there was “a need to protect the public and the reputation of the profession from future harm”, but that this did not necessitate Matthew Howells being indefinitely suspended or being struck off.
It said: “The tribunal noted the sentence imposed by the magistrates’ court, in particular the imposition of a low-level community penalty.”
Mr Howells was born in 1991 and qualified in 2018. He had been working in the London office of US firm Cooley when he was convicted of an offence under section 2A(1) and (4) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
According to a statement of agreed facts and outcome approved by the SDT, Mr Howells admitted at Wimbledon Magistrates’ Court that in spring 2022 he repeatedly followed, made contact and sent unsolicited items to Person A.
This included leaving a chocolate Easter egg, Easter card, bouquet of flowers and a packet of Haribo Tangfastics outside of her door on Good Friday.
He said that, whilst there was no intention to harass her, he accepted that he did so, despite her saying that their relationship was over and he should stop contacting her.
Mr Howells did not accept that he contacted her after his arrest in June 2022.
Though the impact of the events were claimed to have caused distress to Person A, there was “a lack of evidence to support this allegation”, the SDT was told. Mr Howells pleaded guilty to an offence that explicitly excluded any element of fear, alarm, or distress.
His plea was accepted and, in March 2023, he was sentenced to a 12-month community order with a rehabilitation activity requirement of 10 days, victim surcharge of £85, victim compensation of £500, prosecution costs of £144, and a two-year restraining order.
Mr Howells told the Solicitors Regulation Authority that “his irrational conduct was a consequence of the very high levels of anxiety he had been suffering from that had worsened because of the relationship breakdown”.
In mitigation, Mr Howells acknowledged that his actions fell short of the standards expected of a solicitor “and deeply regrets the impact of his behaviour”.
He pointed out that the court explicitly remarked that his actions were at the very low end of the seriousness spectrum, and imposed the lowest possible sanction available within sentencing guidelines.
“The proven behaviours underpinning Mr Howells’ conviction involved phone calls, emails, and the leaving of pre-purchased gifts, which, while inappropriate, did not involve threats, intimidation, or physical harm and such actions were only ever intended as gestures of goodwill in a bid for forgiveness and reconciliation of the relationship between Mr Howells and Person A.”
Since April 2022, Mr Howells said, he has had regular therapy to address his mental health challenges and develop stronger emotional resilience.
He had also already faced “serious repercussions”, including the loss of his home, career opportunities, and professional reputation.
“Mr Howells acknowledge that his actions, even though arising from personal circumstances, have had professional consequences. However, Mr Howells has taken extensive steps to ensure that he never finds himself in such a situation again.
“Mr Howells has developed better coping mechanisms, maintained his engagement with therapy, and built a stronger support network. As a result, Mr Howells is confident that there is no risk of repetition.”
He said he remained “deeply committed” to the legal profession and during the suspension would focus on “further legal education, professional development, and ethical training to ensure that he returns to practice as a better and more responsible solicitor”.
It is scary that a legal piece like this can minimise and ignore the psychological impact of stalking. I say this. As a victim of stalking, and a qualified mental health practitioner. A phone call, just seeing the number had an impact, feeling scared to pick up the phone. Most importantly
saying no and people feeling that can ‘change your mind.’ Statements like : Though the impact of the events were claimed to have caused distress to Person A, there was “a lack of evidence to support this allegation”, the SDT was told. Mr Howells pleaded guilty to an offence that explicitly excluded any element of fear, alarm, or distress. ” The evidence would be that she said it did, or we enter the victim blaming realm, allowing the perpetrator to decide his intention trumps the actual impact.
“proven behaviours underpinning Mr Howells’ conviction involved phone calls, emails, and the leaving of pre-purchased gifts, ” I have worked with 15 year old experiencing this type of stalking, it is precursors to higher level offending. Shockingly worded piece which I do not think really conveys the impact of the victim. But the stalker was only low level. More training by all I would hope.