A Yorkshire property developer was given a 16-month suspended prison sentence after admitting controlling and coercive behaviour for a sustained campaign of surveillance and harassment against a woman with whom he had an affair, a court heard.
Leeds Crown Court was told the 37-year-old installed listening devices and a hidden camera in the woman’s home and car, accessed the devices more than 1,000 times and attempted to hire a private investigator to follow her while his wife was pregnant with their first child.
Prosecutors said Lewis Minnock, a director of Sovereign Homes who also owns properties through Robiva Properties, began monitoring the woman after an extramarital relationship developed. The court heard he met the woman through work. In January 2023, he gave her what appeared to be a car phone charger that was, in reality, a disguised listening device, the prosecutor said.
By October 2023 a tracker and additional bugs had been discovered. Police located devices in the woman’s living room and bedroom, including a disguised speaker containing a hidden camera. The court was told that several of the installations were performed so poorly they rendered the vehicle unsafe.
The prosecution said Minnock accessed recordings and the devices’ data more than 1,000 times between March and December 2023, and that he made arrangements to follow the woman when she travelled to Mexico to escape the relationship. A mutual friend said they saw a receipt for about £4,500 for a private investigator, and Minnock told the friend he sought a refund because he was unable to afford the fee, the court heard.
The victim told the court the campaign of surveillance left her fearful and fundamentally changed her life. In a statement read aloud, she said: "There isn't a day that goes by where I don't feel the weight of what he did to me. The world I knew and the version of me that existed has now gone. I don't recognise my life any more and I certainly don't recognise myself. Everything that made me feel safe has been stripped away."
She added that the conduct was not "love" but "obsession, control and abuse," and described how Minnock "created a version of events to make it look like I was the problem." She said she felt "lucky to be alive with the obsession and anger he held."
The court also heard that Minnock assaulted the woman on two occasions, including one incident filmed by a domestic doorbell camera in which he dragged her from her home.
Defence counsel told the court Minnock expressed shame and remorse. His lawyer said he had become conflicted between his relationship with the victim and loyalty to his wife, who he had known since adolescence and who was pregnant during much of the period of the misconduct. The defence noted Minnock has a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Mrs. Sarah Minnock, who the court heard the defendant met as a teenager and who subsequently gave birth to a son, submitted a statement to the court in which she described her husband as a "determined, deep-down loyal person" and said his behaviour was "out of character." She said she had chosen not to leave him because she believed in the person she had known for more than two decades.
Sentence was passed after Minnock admitted the criminal charge relating to controlling and coercive behaviour. He was spared immediate imprisonment and received a 16-month custodial sentence suspended for a period, together with a five-year restraining order prohibiting contact with the victim.
The prosecution described the conduct as a prolonged campaign of control that included covert surveillance and efforts to monitor the woman's private life. The number of times the devices were accessed and the presence of recording equipment in private areas were among the matters the judge took into account.
Cases involving controlling or coercive behaviour are prosecuted under legislation that recognises patterns of non-physical abuse intended to control another adult’s day-to-day life. Sentencing in such cases reflects the cumulative impact of repeated acts rather than single incidents, and can include suspended sentences when courts determine immediate custody is not required but restrictions and monitoring are necessary.
The woman’s statements and the court’s findings highlight the psychological and practical consequences of hidden surveillance. She said the experience left her "a ghost of the person I used to be" and that she lives with a constant fear.
Minnock’s legal team told the court there had been elements of personal turmoil and that he had acted out of jealousy and fear that the relationship would end, describing episodes as stemming from conflicted emotions rather than a premeditated pattern of abuse. The judge imposed the restraining order and suspended custodial sentence with conditions designed to protect the victim and prevent further contact.
Leeds Crown Court proceedings established the timeline of events predominantly during 2023 and concluded with the admission and sentencing earlier this year. The case drew attention in the region because of Minnock’s profile as a director of a local property firm and because the misconduct occurred while his wife was expecting their first child.
Police investigations uncovered the devices and the extent of the surveillance after the woman reported concerns and devices were located in her vehicle and home. The court heard that some of the equipment had been installed in a manner that posed safety risks, prompting further investigation when it was discovered.
The judge ordered the restraining order to run for five years and made ancillary orders intended to prevent further contact and harassment. The ruling also included requirements linked to monitoring compliance. The victim’s statement was accepted by the court as evidence of the lasting harm caused by the campaign of control and surveillance.
The case underscores legal and societal responses to controlling behaviour in relationships and the ways technology can be misused to monitor and intimidate. It closed with the defendant receiving a suspended sentence and formal restrictions intended to protect the victim from further contact and to recognise the seriousness of the conduct determined by the court.