Washington phone pest bothered emergency services with bizarre calls to 999

Carl Brannen, 48, baffled Northumbria Police call handlers by making three bizarre and muddled calls which lacked detail and ended without full explanation.

In the first, Brannen, of Kenilworth Court, Sulgrave, Washington, alleged a man was acting inappropriately with a 13-year-old boy.

And in two others, also made between Wednesday, September 21, and Tuesday, September 27, he relayed unfathomable part-messages before hanging up.

Brannen was at the time subject to a police-backed community protection order, following a previous similar call.

The order compels him to not ring 999 unless he gives full details of any alleged emergency to the operator.

Magistrates in South Tyneside slammed him for abusing the phone system – and warned him about his future conduct.

Kay Gilbert, chair of the bench, told Brannen: “You really need to stop ringing 999 unless it’s a life-or-death emergency.

“You’re clogging the system up. If you come back here again, we’ll have to treat you more seriously. You’re wasting the police’s time.”

Prosecutor Paul Anderson said: “An officer with the Washington neighbourhood team is aware of Mr Brannen because of previous difficulties with him.

“The order has a special part that he must, with immediate effect, cooperate with any subsequent investigation into criminality he may experience.

“In September there are three calls. In one, he says he can’t give details because a gossip is listening in.

“The second and third calls are similar. In one he said he had lost his wallet. He said he couldn’t give details because there’s a lad in the flats who robs.

“He didn’t say where he was and called the call handler ‘mental’.”

Brannen, who has 46 previous convictions, pleaded guilty to failing to comply with a community protection notice.

John Williams, defending, said: “He is a vulnerable adult and is the victim of malicious abuse from third parties.

“He calls the police to tell them but then stops and doesn’t give the information because of possible repercussions.”

Brannen was fined £40, with £85 court costs and a £16 victim surcharge.