### Stalker of Emily Maitlis Sentenced to Five Years in Prison for Persistent Harassment
A man with a decades-long fixation on journalist Emily Maitlis has been handed a five-year jail term after repeatedly violating a restraining order meant to protect her and her family. The case, marked by distressing accounts of harassment extending back over thirty years, was brought to a close at Nottingham Crown Court this week.
Edward Vines, 55, was convicted of breaching the legal order by dispatching letters from prison not only to Ms Maitlis herself, but also her parents. Despite his history of legal interventions, Vines continued his attempts to contact the former BBC Newsnight presenter, prompting renewed fears for the broadcaster’s safety and well-being.
During the trial, which Vines chose not to attend, the court heard how he had persisted in contacting the Maitlis family, even arranging for his brother to try to reach Ms Maitlis’ mother. These new offences took place whilst he was serving a sentence for earlier harassment-related crimes at HMP Lowdham Grange, underlining a prolonged and troubling pattern of behaviour.
Representing himself in court, Vines denied any wrongdoing regarding multiple counts of breaching, and attempting to breach, the standing restraining order between May 2023 and February 2024. However, prosecutors presented evidence of more than 20 intercepted letters sent over a ten-month period, which ultimately led to his conviction on all charges.
The background to Vines’s obsession dates back to the pair’s university days at Cambridge. Their brief friendship ended after he confessed his feelings, and according to the court, Vines remained “distraught” over the failed relationship. His actions in the years since have made Ms Maitlis, her husband, and their children take extensive safety precautions, from being escorted to school to coping with Vines’s unexpected appearances at their home.
In a victim statement submitted to the court by prosecutor Fergus Malone, Ms Maitlis recounted the enduring psychological toll of Vines’s attention, stating: “For over 30 years I have been living with the consequences of the persistent and unwanted attention of this individual.” She further described heightened feelings of vulnerability and anxiety, particularly when the matter comes before the courts, and expressed deep concern that Vines might one day be released on bail.
Ms Maitlis also revealed distressing incidents involving her family. Her husband reportedly found Vines on the doorstep, her young children required supervision simply to board the school bus, and her elderly mother faced what she described as “upsetting interactions”. In a 2018 radio interview, Ms Maitlis likened the lingering fear engendered by Vines’s harassment to a “chronic illness”.
Sentencing in Vines’s absence, Judge Mark Watson described the case as a tragedy and remarked on the persistent threat posed by Vines’s behaviour. “He has shown complete contempt for this order,” the judge observed. While the judge accepted that Vines’s mental health played a part in the offending, he also noted that Vines retained the capacity for rational decision-making and described him as “very bright and articulate”.
“It is only his imprisonment that now prevents him from making further contact,” Judge Watson added, emphasising the seriousness of each letter, regardless of their content, in light of the protracted history of harassment. The court heard these letters, although not explicitly abusive or threatening, constituted harassment simply by their nature and persistence.
Vines’s ongoing struggle with his obsession was laid bare in one of the letters he penned to Ms Maitlis. “I’m still distraught about what took place between us in 1990,” he wrote, before admitting his ongoing depression and confusion over the longevity of his distress.
A prior restraining order was first imposed in 2022 after Vines was found guilty of eight earlier breaches, resulting in an eight-year prison term. With the latest sentence handed down, the court’s action sends a clear message about the severity with which crimes of persistent harassment and intimidation are regarded, and the lengths to which victims often go in pursuit of safety and peace of mind.
The case highlights the relentless impact stalking can have on victims, reaffirming the importance of legal protections and the ongoing support required for those targeted by such behaviour. The resolution may provide some solace to Ms Maitlis and her family, but the lasting psychological damage inflicted as a result of Vines’s actions remains a sobering reminder of the costs of persistent harassment.