Lovesick caller falls for 999 operator, court hears

Lovelorn father of two, Maciej Adam Mrowinski of Old Stocks Farm, Paices Hill, Aldermaston, kept one emergency operator on the line for 45 minutes, the court was told on Thursday, January 22.
Helen Waite, prosecuting, said: “Clearly this is a serious matter, tying up the emergency services operators for so long - they can’t just put the phone down on him.”
She sought a restraining order in respect of the 45-year-old to stop him dialling 999 to try to find the object of his desire.
Ms Waite said Mr Mrowinski would begin by asking for a particular operator whose voice had “made him happy” the previous evening.
The rambling calls increased in length and number, the court heard, until one took a more disturbing turn.
Ms Waite said: “Worringly, he told one female operator: ‘When you are sleeping with me, I can touch you. Life is beautiful. Maybe future time, maybe you have my number. Maybe you are thinking in future time you can call me.’
“Later that evening he made another rambling call. Police attended his home address and found him with the phone still in his hand. He said he was looking for the woman who had helped him the other night.”
Mr Mrowinski admitted causing wasteful employment of the police by knowingly making a 999 call when there was no emergency, on December 23 last year.
Ms Waite concluded: “The Crown seeks a restraining order preventing him from using the 999 system unless there’s a genuine emergency.”
Simon Hammudi, defending, said his client’s wife had left him 12 months ago and added: “It was the first time he had been on his own at Christmas and he just wanted to speak to someone. He accepts it was completely stupid.
“One particular operator had been particularly helpful, giving him numbers to call for help. But he had no credit.”
He said his client had been drinking when he made the calls but added: “He is now working for a local building company, Murphy’s. He isn’t drinking any more and feels a lot better for it.”
Under the circumstances, suggested Mr Hammudi, a restraining order would be too Draconian.
He concluded: “He knows he shouldn’t have done it and he won’t be doing this any more.”
Magistrates ruled that a restraining order was not approriate to the circumstances of the case and declined to make one.
Instead Mr Mrowinski was made subject to a 12 month conditional discharge and ordered to pay £85 costs plus a statutory surcharge of £15.