Christopher John Wilcox, 43, pleaded guilty to the single offence in the Launceston Magistrates Court on April 16, 2024.

Police prosecutor Katarina Gauden said the woman protected by the order had notified police after she had been staying with Wilcox between February 23 and March 1.

Wilcox had been released from custody early February after breaching the same order.

Police charged Wilcox with several offences after his most recent arrest, however all but one of these were dismissed as officers found no evidence to support allegations made by the woman in a sworn statutory declaration.

Defence counsel Lucy Flanagan said the woman had initiated contact as she had nowhere to stay, and Wilcox offered to provide a roof over her head.

Ms Flanagan said Wilcox "accepted it was a blatant breach" of the court order, and he knew in the future he would cut all contact with the woman in question.

She said Wilcox was on the waitlist for a family violence offender intervention program.

Ms Flanagan asked magistrate Ken Stanton for Wilcox to be sentenced to time served, totalling 47 days as he had not applied for bail.

This was the case in February.

The magistrate indicated he was loath to consider that prospect, as it could send Wilcox the wrong message - that he could commit an offence and only face a mild punishment.

"He might think that will be all he will get," Mr Stanton said.

Mr Stanton said Wilcox's behaviour was understandable, however it placed him in legal jeopardy.

"You were approached by her in circumstances where she was in crisis," Mr Stanton said.

"You showed understandable human concern. The fact is you are not allowed contact.

"It increases the risks ... including providing opportunities for her to make allegations, even if they are not established."

The magistrate said there were several mitigating factors, including the fact the offence was down to Wilcox "merely being in the presence" of the woman, and he had not made any threats nor was he violent towards her.

He weighed these against the factors that increased the seriousness of the breach, including Wilcox's history of family violence offending against multiple women.

There was also the fact Wilcox had breached the family violence order just days after being released from custody for a "virtually identical" offence.

"This was another example of many, many occasions where you have breached orders," Mr Stanton said.

"This was a blatant breach, a wilful breach.

"Subsequent offending and persistent offending has to be treated with more seriousness. Long ago you came into the highest level of maximum penalties."

Mr Stanton said Wilcox's breach of court orders had to be "firmly denounced" and, on balance, time served was not the appropriate penalty.

He sentenced Wilcox to 60 days' imprisonment.

This sentence was backdated to March 1, when Wilcox was arrested, leaving the man to serve a further 13 days behind bars.