Chief Constable of Suffolk Police -v- William Jermyn

County CourtCommittal for Contempt of Court

Claim number: M00NR403

In the Bury St Edmunds County Court

15 October 2025

Before:

District Judge Earl

Between:

Chief Constable of Suffolk Police

-v-

William Jermyn

Judgement

On the 26 September 2025 District Judge Earl sat in public at the County Court in Bury St Edmunds and heard an application for committal for contempt of court.

The Court was satisfied having considered the facts disclosed by the evidence and admitted in Court by him that the Defendant was guilty of contempt of this Court by disobeying a final Antisocial Behaviour Injunction dated 6 June 2025 on six separate occasions, contrary to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Injunction, specifically that:

i. On 18 June 2025 the Defendant joined or remained with two others in the centre of Bury St Edmunds in breach of paragraph 3 of the order.
ii. On 21 June 2025 the Defendant joined or remained with two others in the centre of Bury St Edmunds in breach of paragraph 3 of the order.
iii. On 5 August 2025 the Defendant joined or remained with two others in the centre of Bury St Edmunds in breach of paragraph 3 of the order.
iv. On 13 August 2025 the Defendant joined or remained with two others in the centre of Bury St Edmunds in breach of paragraph 3 of the order and had in his possession an unopened container of alcohol in breach of paragraph 2 of the order.
v. On 15 September 2025 the Defendant joined or remained with two others in the centre of Bury St Edmunds in breach of paragraph 3 of the order and had in his possession an open container of alcohol in breach of paragraph 2 of the order.
vi. On 16 September 2025 the Defendant joined or remained with two others in the centre of Bury St Edmunds in breach of paragraph 3 of the order.

The court used the guidance set out by the Civil Justice Council on Anti-social behaviour and the civil courts and arrived at category B in terms of Culpability and category 2 in terms of Harm for each offence. Amongst other matters, the court took into consideration the number of breaches that had come before the court and that Mr Jermyn accepted the breaches.

IT WAS ORDERED

  1. The defendant was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment for each breach to run concurrently.
  2. And it was ordered that there be no order for costs.