Mei Fan feared being stalked court told

MEI FAN made an affidavit to the Family Court saying she was fearful of her husband, Michael Preston, and scared he was stalking her.

Roslyn Fraser, a court services manager from Wellington Family Court, told a jury in the High Court at Wellington that Fan had applied for a protection order and a parenting order over their two children in 2012.

She said it was a complex case that required oversight.

Michael Edwin Preston, 60 has pleaded not guilty to murdering Mei Fan and breaching a protection order by physically abusing her on November 8, 2013.

The Crown case is that Preston, upset about a protection order served on him, and wanting full custody of the couple’s two children, killed Fan in a knife attack that left the weapon embedded in her neck.

She was found dead in her home in Brussels St, Miramar, on November 10.

In an affidavit read to the jury, Fan said that after she and Preston separated, he would come to her work while the children were there, talking in a loud voice and telling customers she was having sex with another man.

She said Preston was acting in a really crazy way. ‘‘I feel very fearful from him.’’

The children had been scared and crying. She also feared her husband was stalking her, sending her texts telling her that he had seen her leaving work, threatening to have her deported, or wanting her back.

In one text, he said he was in a queue at Immigration NZ to see about getting her sent back to China.

The affidavit also outlined an incident in China during which he lifted her over a fifth-floor balcony during an argument.

Fan felt the threats had escalated and that Preston’s behaviour was unpredictable.

She said he would be

furious Mei Fan had applied for a court protection order and a parenting order in 2012. when he was served with the protection order, and that he wanted to monitor everything she did.

He had offered to take Fan back if she was faithful for six months and if he could watch all her communications.

The protection and parenting orders were granted, but Preston repeatedly broke them, texting Fan or turning up at places she was. In one incident, he forcibly removed the children from her care and returned them only when the parenting order was amended.

Preston’s version of the relationship was in an answering affidavit, which Fraser read to the court. He said he had gone to Fan’s workplace to hand over belongings.

‘‘I could no longer live with a woman who had broken the trust between us carrying on a two-year affair with another man.’’

She wanted to send the children overseas to school, and her job in China was a highly illegal ponzi scheme, he said.

He denied stalking her and said none of his communication with her was intended to be threatening or frightening.

He also mentioned that Fan had a boyfriend, with whom she took long holidays and spent 51⁄2-hours a day chatting online.

In phone calls Fan recorded that were played to the jury, Preston called her a narcissist and told her to stop ‘‘this court business’’.

The Family Court judge refused to make a temporary protection order permanent, finding both Preston and Fan had been psychologically abusive and were co-dependent.