A 66-year-old man who ordered a 16-foot social distance at his family’s house is appealing his conviction for coercive behavior

A 66-year-old man who ordered a 16-foot social distance at his family’s house is appealing his conviction for coercive behavior

After being convicted of coercive and controlling behavior, an engineer who implemented a 16-foot social distancing rule with his own family during lockdown is appealing.

After their separation during the pandemic, Peter Copland, 66, scheduled times for his wife Maria and two children to use the huge kitchen at their Paignton, Devon, house.

As he and Maria divorced after 33 years of marriage, the retired engineer established ground rules.

He allegedly wrote her e-mails about a “five-metre rule” – which began as a two-metre restriction – and the kitchen timetable, according to Exeter magistrates.

Following a trial, the magistrates convicted him of coercive and controlling behavior and decided that the break up rules had become ‘intimidating and domineering.’

Copland, who now lives in Coalville, Leicestershire, is appealing his conviction and sentence at Exeter Crown Court.

‘Mr Copland wanted a five-metre distance from him at all times,’ prosecutor Herc Ashworth told the appeal judge.

He said Copland’s regulations also included assigning different rooms in the house to his wife, Jessica, 22, a student, and son James, 19.

Copland had two different conflicts with his children in the kitchen in August 2020, according to the court.

When James went inside the enormous 20-foot square kitchen for a cold Fanta drink on a day when it was 30 degrees, Copland was claimed to be ‘aggressive’ and raised a ruckus because it was ‘not his time to go in there.’

The same thing happened when Jessica went into the kitchen to get some keys, according to Mr Ashworth.

His ex-wife said: ‘He kept on saying “get out” and “it’s my time”. And shouted at me to get out.’

She said the kitchen rules meant it was a ‘rush’ to prepare meals and said they had to take drinks and snacks up to their allocated bedrooms in case they were hungry or thirsty during his time slot for the kitchen.

She said: ‘It was not ideal at all. He was always right, because it was his rules.’

Mrs. Copland stated that she wished to shield her children from his “aggressive” behavior.

She claimed her husband told her in 2018 that he had no preparations for them in retirement and would leave them in “two to three years when all the money run out”.

Mr Ashworth predicted that Copland would argue the guidelines had been agreed upon and were reasonable given the circumstances of the pandemic.

The appeal is still ongoing.