A man has finally been seen before a court after he punched a television and damaged items in his ex-partner's home almost three years ago. 

On Sunday, August 29, 2021, Scott Gilder 37, of Bernard Street, Salisbury, damaged a number of items in his ex-partner's Trowbridge bedroom after 'losing control'. 

It took almost two years for charges to be brought against Gilder, but he failed to turn up to his initial court date in September last year, and a warrant for his arrest was issued. 

However, the defendant said that he had no idea that proceedings had progressed following his initial arrest, after checking with police multiple times and being told there was no update. 

READ MORE: Items allegedly stolen from Dunks Specialist Model Shop in Trowbridge

He had also moved address so did not receive his court summons. 

Once he found out there was an active warrant for his arrest, he handed himself in to Salisbury Police Station on Tuesday, May 7 and remained in custody until his court appearance on Wednesday, May 8 at Swindon Magistrates' Court where he pleaded guilty to the charges. 

The court heard from prosecutor Katie Prince that he had been in a relationship with the victim and had two children with her, she had described him as a 'good father'. 

The incident occurred on when he stayed at the victim's house. 

It was alleged that he had been smoking cannabis and had had too much to drink, leading to the victim challenging him. 

He is then said to have 'lost it' and punched the television twice, completely smashing the screen, and he threw a bedside table. 

The victim described not wanting to come home "to see the devastation and damage left behind," and she "found it very unsettling" adding that she was now effectively a single parent because of the incident. 

SEE ALSO: Kingston Place family thank fire crews for salvaging antique furniture

In mitigation, Gordon Hotson added that Gilder had not drunk since the incident, and is not a regular drug user.

He also said that he has not seen his children or attempted to contact the victim for two years. 

Magistrates were also asked to consider the 'inordinate' amount of time it had taken to bring this matter to court, through no fault of the defendant's. 

The possibility of a restraining order was raised, but after deliberating it was decided it was not proportionate in these circumstances. 

Instead, he must pay £500 in compensation. 

There was no cost or victim surcharge.