A jilted boyfriend has successfully appealed against a harassment conviction on the grounds that a series of letters he sent to his former girlfriend may have been attempts to win her back.

Brian Hughes, 42, was found guilty by Bradford magistrates, but after a hearing at the city's Crown Court yesterday a judge and two magistrates decided that the prosecution had failed to prove the case.

The court heard how Maria Kitson met Hughes last April but then broke off their relationship after just five weeks.

Miss Kitson, of Manningham, Bradford, described how she told Hughes that she never wanted to see him again, but he had replied: "I'm going to sue you.''

She explained that Hughes had said he had used her name in a business partnership to try to get funding for a film project.

A few days later she also received a letter from him in which he referred to them having taken part in a "handfasting'' ritual, which she understood to be some kind of medieval engagement.

"Did you become engaged to him?'' asked prosecuting barrister Robert Blantern.

"No,'' replied Miss Kitson.

She did, however, resume the relationship with Hughes for a few more weeks before she decided to end it for good.

Again she started receiving letters and she contacted the police and an inspector visited Hughes.

He was warned that he could face prosecution if he sent any more letters. The following month Hughes, of York House, Idlethorpe Way, Bradford, was arrested and charged after he sent another letter.

But his barrister Gerald Hendron successfully argued that because of the reconciliation after Hughes's first letter the prosecution had failed to prove that he ought to have known the later letters in June would amount to harassment.

He conceded that argument did not apply to the letter sent in July, but as that was a single letter to her it did not amount to "a course of conduct'' as defined in law.

Recorder John Hitchen concluded: "We are of the opinion that it amounts to harassment but whether he knew it amounted to harassment or ought to have known it amounted to harassment is a secondary question and whether or not in the circumstances Mr Hughes's behaviour was unreasonable is also a relevant question."