Basildon Borough Council -v- Samantha Gibson (committal for contempt of court)
Claim number: JOOBQ235
In the County Court at Basildon
28 November 2024
Before:
His Honour Judge Duddridge
Between:
Basildon Borough Council
-v-
Samantha Gibson
Order
Before His Honour Judge Duddridge sitting at the County Court at Southend, The Court House, 80 Victoria Avenue, Southend-on-sea, Essex, SS2 6EU.
UPON the hearing listed to decide the penalty that should be imposed on the Defendant for the contempts of court found by DDJ Li vesley on 6 February 2024
AND UPON hearing the Claimant’s solicitor and Counsel for the Defendant
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
I . The Defendant be committed to prison for a period of 4 weeks.
2. The committal of the Defendant to prison under paragraph I above shall be suspended for a period of 12 months on condition that the Defendant complies with the injunction ordered by
3. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant’s costs summarily assessed in the sum of £3131.10 within 28 days.
4. There be detailed assessment of the Defendant’s publicly funded costs.
5. The Defendant has the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal against this sentence without needing permission. The Appellant’s Notice must be filed with the Court of Appeal by 4pm on 19 December 2024.
6. This order with the reasons set out below shall be published on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales.
REASONS
I. I am deciding the penalty for 6 breaches of an anti-social behaviour injunction made against the Defendant on 29 August 2024.
2. Those breaches were found proved by DDJ Livesley at a hearing on 6 February 2024. These committal. proceedings followed the Defendant’s arrest for breach of the injunction on 18 January 2024.
3. The breaches are set out in a Schedule which appears in the hearing bundle that was prepared for a hearing on 30 July 2024. They took place between 12 November 2023 and 18 December 2023.
4. I have read the witness statement of Jennifer Phillips dated 12 November 2024, filed in compliance with the order of HHJ Moloney KC (S.l.R.) dated 2 August 2024. That witness statement alleges that the Defendant has continued to breach the injunction since her arrest. It exhibits a schedule containing 61 allegations (including the 6 that were subject to findings made by DDJ Livesley), and a schedule of transcripts from voice recordings made of the Defendant.
5. However, I am only sentencing in respect of the 6 breaches found by DDJ Livesley. It would not be appropriate to sentence for further allegations which have not been found proved (whether on admission or following a trial).
6. I have also read the two witness statements prepared by the Defendant, dated 2 August 2024 and today, which exhibit evidence showing that she has the significant physical disability and mental health conditions referred to below. It is not suggested that she lacks capacity to conduct litigation or understand and comply with the injunction.
7. I have had regard to the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631 that the three purposes of sentencing for contempt of court are, in this order: (a}ensuring future compliance with the order; (b) punishment; and (c) rehabilitation, and to the CJC guidelines reproduced at paragraph 54 of the judgment in that case.
8. There has been a long delay since DDJ Livesley’s findings, attributable mainly to difficulties and delays in obtaining legal aid for the Defendant. HHJ Moloney adjourned sentencing on 2 August 2024 apparently in order to obtain evidence about whether the Defendant had complied with the Order since those findings were made. However, the effect of delay is that the appropriate penalty was not decided promptly after those findings were made, with a view to incentivising compliance with the Order by bringing it home to the Defendant that failure to do so was likely to lead to some meaningful punishment. That is regrettable given that the purpose of the injunction is to protect neighbours and others from the conduct complained of.
9. I shall decide the penalty by reference to the totality of the breaches rather than individually given that they are similar in nature and persisted over a 6 week period.
10. Because of their similarity and persistence, I consider these breaches to fall within Culpability A. It is not suggested that the Defendant did not underst nd the terms of the injunction or was unable to comply with it.
11. Although none of breaches included actual violence or damage to prope1ty, they consisted of serious abuse and threats of extreme violence targeted at the Defendant’s neighbour, who was the very person the injunction was intended to protect. The behaviour was capable of being the criminal offence of harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. It is likely to have caused the neighbour very significant distress and harm. I have considered whether it falls into Harm Category l. But, given the wide range of breaches of injunctions the county court has to deal with, some of which include serious violence or damage to property, I have concluded that this case falls within Harm Category 2, but towards the upper end of that category.
12. The starting point for Culpability A, Harm 2 is a custodial sentence of 3 months with a range from adjourned consideration to 6 months.
13. I have already taken into account the persistence and nature of the breaches when deciding the Culpability and Harm Categories. For that reason, I do not consider them as aggravating features. There are no other aggravating features in this case.
14. The Defendant has the following significant personal mitigating circumstances:
(a) She suffers from sight loss due to retinitis pigmentosa. Her witness statements set out some of the difficulties this causes her in daily life, including how she behaves in her flat, and she needs significant support to manage her affairs. For that reason, she would find prison a particularly difficult experience.
(b) Additionally, she suffers from mental health disorders including recurrent depression, emotionally unstable personality disorder and a behavioural disorder due to withdrawal from cannabinoids. Although she does not lack capacity to understand and comply with the injunction, her behaviour may nonetheless be partly attributable to her personality and behavioural disorders. In any case, her mental health disorders are further reasons why she would find prison particularly difficult, and more so when combined with her physical disability.
(c) The Claimant has served a notice seeking possession on the Defendant. If possession proceedings arc pursued, the breaches are a mandatory ground of possession. The Defendant is at risk of losing her home. Although that is not a punishment for contempt of court as such, it is a serious adverse consequence of her behaviour which I take into account in deciding the appropriate penalty for the breaches.
15. Taking the above factors into account, I consider that the custody threshold is crossed in this case. I therefore do not consider that a lesser penalty, such as a fine, would be appropriate.
16. Bearing in mind the Defendant’s significant personal mitigation, the appropriate period of custody is 4 weeks. That penalty will be suspended for 12 months on condition that the Defendant complies with the injunction. If further breaches are found in future then that penalty may be activated in addition to any penalty imposed for those further breaches.
Dated: 28 November 2024