‘Not proven’ verdict for optometrist accused of following mum and young children

Allegations a trainee optometrist was “threatening or abusive” when he followed a mother and three children through a golf course have been found “not proven”.

Chikezie Ihesiulor had denied the charge, relating to an incident at Dales Voe golf course, Tingwall, on 8th July last year.

Following a trial at Lerwick Sheriff Court on Thursday, Sheriff Ian Cruickshank said while the case “sat on the fence” he did not consider the behaviour to be criminal.

He delivered a “not proven” verdict for the married 36-year-old of Tingwall, who is originally from Nigeria but has been living in the UK since 2012.

Ihesiulor had only been in Shetland three days when he decided to cycle through Dales Voe golf course on the evening in question.

A mother and her three young children were walking their dog at the time.

The mother told the court she first became aware of Ihesiulor behind them on the track as they made their way up a hill. After turning around at the top, she said Ihesiulor continued following her down the hill.

She said she could hear his “squeaky brakes” and although she moved aside several times to let him past, he remained behind them.

The complainer told the court she started to feel worried but tried to remain calm for the children.

She left the path to cross a marshy areas believing he could not follow on his bike.

However, she said he continued following. By this point, the mother said she felt “scared” and the children were “upset”.

Two golfers playing nearby saw she was upset and approached to ask if she knew the man and whether she was OK.

She said she did not and ran to her car, while the golfers quizzed Ihesiulor.

Defence agent Tommy Allan asked why Ihesiulor made her uncomfortable and whether it might have been due to his “unfamiliar” language or his colour. The woman strongly denied the suggestion.

The golfers, taking the stand separately, both said they first noticed Ihesiulor cycling around the third fairway, which they thought was “strange”.

They noticed him again when he was cycling behind the family.

One of the golfers, a 29-year-old electrician, said he could “tell they were uncomfortable”. When he saw Ihesiulor following her off the path, the electrician they decided to go over and check on them.

The other golfer, aged 26, said his behaviour “rang alarm bells”.

Ihesiulor told the court he had not intended to make the woman uncomfortable and would have taken another direction if he knew she was unhappy.

He said he had been advised by his Airbnb host to see some nearby windmills, which was how he came to be cycling through the golf course.

Although he acknowledged cycling behind the family, he insisted he had been keeping his distance.

When he saw them turn around at the top of the hill, Ihesiulor said he thought it meant there was nothing interesting to see further along, which is why he also turned back.

He said his decision to follow her off the path was because he thought it “looked like an interesting place”.

Ihesiulor said his only intention that day was to get to know the place better and make friends with the golfers he met.

He said he was “concerned” to learn the woman was uncomfortable.

“It wasn’t my intention,” he said.

Procurator fiscal Duncan MacKenzie acknowledged it was “never going to be a straightforward case”. He also agreed it was not Ihesiulor’s intention to make the complainer suffer “fear or alarm”.

However, he suggested his behaviour had been “reckless” as to whether it would case her to feel that way.

Mr MacKenzie said the golfers’ reaction showed they were concerned for her safety.

Mr Allan said following someone was different to “generally going in the same direction”. He pointed out it happened in a public place on a summer evening not “down some dark alley”.

“What did anybody think was going to happen here?” he asked.

Mr Allan said it was a “misunderstanding not a crime”.

Sheriff Cruickshank said that while it seemed Ihesiulor deliberately followed the complainer, the question was whether this was “criminally reckless” – and concluded it was not.