Maria Holberry, 57, of Le Grand Bouet, St Peter Port, admitted persistently using the telecommunications network for the purpose of causing annoyance and inconvenience to others when she appeared in the Magistrate’s Court.
The court heard that a total of 37 calls had been made, though not all could be attributed to the defendant.
Due to the high number of calls, the case was reviewed and a warning letter was sent to the defendant.
She was then reported to court for further incidents from the day she received the letter.
The court was told that Holberry had consumed a large amount of alcohol and between 4pm and 5.21pm that day made five calls for an ambulance, which resulted in two attendances. It was deemed that there was no need for hospital treatment but due to her demeanour ambulance staff called for the police, who attended at 5.50pm. Holberry was abusive to ambulance staff and this continued after the police chose to arrest her and she was being put in a van. She admitted behaving in a disorderly manner.
In interview the next day, she said she had drunk a lot. She would call for an ambulance to help her feel safe but she had been told that the hospital was not a hotel. She said she had also had issues with her neighbours but had moved since committing these offences.
In May this year she was made subject to a conditional discharge by the court for behaving in a disorderly manner at the hospital.
Defending, Advocate Samuel Steel said his client suffered from panic attacks. On the day in question she felt she had something stuck in her throat but accepted that this had been down to her intoxication. She felt much safer in her new home and was ashamed at what she had done. She was feeling better now and had not drunk alcohol for eight weeks.
Judge Gary Perry said the defendant should be under no illusion that these were serious offences. She had wasted the time of the emergency services and abused them in the process, just as she had done at the hospital a while before.
She might think she had turned a corner but that did not happen in eight weeks, and if she thought that was the case then she was at risk of returning to drinking.
For the telecommunications offence, a sentence of four months in prison, suspended for two years, was imposed. Two months concurrent, suspended for the same period, was meted for the disorderly behaviour. The conditional discharge was revoked and replaced with a prison sentence of two months, also suspended. It took the total sentence to one of six months suspended for two years.