Admissibility of evidence — 111 call — severance — breach of protection order — unauthorised entry into home — refusal to leave home — unauthorised text message. The defendant faced two charges of breach of a protection order. He challenged the admissibility as evidence of a 111 call by the complainant. The defendant had gone to the complainant's house together with another person, but denied going inside. The Court found that the 111 call was admissible, as it formed an integral part of the events that were the basis of the charge. Also, a man could be heard speaking in the background in the phone call, and the Court considered that the evidence suggested that the man speaking was the defendant. Therefore the call was evidence the defendant had entered the house as charged. The defendant also made an application for the charges to be severed. The two charges had the same complainant and were closely connected in time. The charges had differences (the first related to an unauthorised entry into a home and refusal to leave, the second to an unauthorised text message), but the Court found that these differences were not enough to warrant severance. Further, the relationship between the defendant and the complainant was key to both charges. The Court declined the severance application. Judgment Date: 14 June 2019.