Committal for Contempt of Court: Ability Housing -v- Callum Elliot
Case No: H00BH337
In the County Court at Bournemouth
11 July 2024
Before:
District Judge Veal
Between:
Ability Housing
-v-
Callum Elliot
Judgment
District Judge Veal:
1. Will you stand please, then, Mr Elliott? You are subject to an antisocial behaviour injunction which was made on or about 20 August 2022. I think that was served on you on 6 September 2022, and originally the injunction was to remain in force until 4 July 2024, but it was extended at the hearing on 12 April 2024 until 4 July 2025. There were other amendments to the injunction, I think, on 12 April 2024 as well, but they are not relevant for my purposes today.
2. The injunction says that you are forbidden to allow any visitors to enter or remain in Flat 5, Kemp Welch Court unless they are a member of Ability Housing Association staff, or a contractor, they are member of the emergency services, they are professional services, or certain named people. Those are allowed into the property, but no one else.
3. You have been brought to court in respect of a breach of that prohibition which took place on 8 September 2023. What I am dealing with today is a contempt application dated 22 September 2023.
4. You have been told of your rights to silence and representation. You have had an opportunity to obtain representation but have not been able to for the reasons that you have already explained to me.
5. The Claimant’s evidence is that, on 6 September 2023, you were seen to arrive at the property by taxi with two people, and those two people brought bags into the property. Those people were seen on the following day with you as well, and returning to the property at about 7.30 that evening. In the early hours of 8 September 2023, the police officer’s evidence and the evidence from the Claimant is that there was an incident in the property involving one of those visitors stabbing the other. The police then knocked on a neighbour’s door.
6. You have come to court today and you have, to your credit, admitted that breach of the injunction. I have been invited to sentence you today and you have agreed that that should take place, although I did let you make further enquiries about legal representation and consider your position before we did that.
7. In my judgment, the breach on 8 September 2023 must have been deliberate. I am entitled, I think, to take into account the fact that the visitors were seen at the property over the course of the previous two days, and the seriousness of your breach is informed by the fact that there appears to have been some preplanning by you to the visit. You accept that you and the visitors first arrived by taxi and that the visit persisted over the course of about two days.
8. There are guidelines in relation to sentence set out in a case called Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631. What the Claimant says is that culpability for your breach falls into at least category B. In my judgment, it is towards the lower end of category A which is a high culpability breach, or at the upper end of category B. It seems to me in those circumstances appropriate that I resolve that potential difference in your favour, and I will treat it as a category B breach.
9. The Claimant’s witness says that she did not hear the incident which resulted in the police being called, and she was in two minds as to whether to assist the police when they did arrive at her door. However, I accept what the Claimant says, which is that, standing back and looking at it overall, one can see that a stabbing which takes place in a neighbour’s property is likely to have had a negative impact on those living around you. That said, the greater harm, it seems to me in the context of this incident, is that caused to the visitors to your property. One of them was stabbed. Taking those things together, I take the view that this is a category 2 harm case, which is one causing harm which is somewhere in between very serious harm and distress, or little harm and distress.
10. I am going to take as my starting point for your breach a custodial sentence of one month.
11. You have told me that you were effectively prevailed upon by the third parties who came to your property. They entered your property because you felt intimidated by them, but you knew also, you told me, that they had some history of using substances and/or causing damage to property. You said that you let them in because you felt unsafe for both yourself and your dog.
12. You say that that is mitigation, although I have to think about that in the context of what is said by your neighbour and what you already knew about those particular individuals. You have accepted that you arrived with them in a taxi for the first time, and I have already said that I consider that that means that there was some preplanning to their visit. You have told me that you thought you had got rid of them on the next day, but that they then returned, and you have also accepted that it was a stupid decision that you made to let them in in the first place. I agree with that.
13. The breach is aggravated by the factors that I have already set out in terms of the preplanning and the persistence over the course of a couple of days, but also in my judgment about what you yourself have said about the circumstances of the breach, which do not serve to mitigate what happened.
14. You have expressed, though, some remorse today, and I give you credit for that.
15. Taking those things together, in my judgment, I therefore move up within the range from my starting point to a custodial sentence of 60 days.
16. You have come to court today and admitted your breach. I accept that, on the last occasion, the case was adjourned for you to take legal advice and what you were not asked to do on the last occasion is say whether you accepted or denied the breach. Although this is technically the day when the trial was due to take place, in all the circumstances I will give you maximum credit for having come to court to admit the breaches and I reduce the sentence to one of 40 days.
17. I then have to consider whether or not to suspend that sentence. In my judgment, I take into account that there is no evidence of a previous breach of this injunction. You were very candid about your poor decision making in the context of what happened in September 2023, and I also consider that the deterrent effect of imposing a suspended sentence will be enough at this stage to secure the aims of sentencing and also the compliance by you with the injunction going forwards.
18. As I say, the injunction has been extended until early July 2025, and the expectation is that you will comply with it from here on in. So, the sentence will be one of 40 days but suspended on the terms of the injunction for the remaining period of the injunction, that is until 4 July 2025.
19. I have to tell you that you have a right to purge contempt. You have a right to appeal the sentence that I have just given as well. You do not need permission to appeal, and you have 21 days to bring an appeal, and any appeal has to be to the Court of Appeal Civil Division. I will direct a transcript of the judgment at public expense.
20. I am just going to hear now from Ms Hall as to whether there is any other application. Have a seat a moment, Mr Elliott.
(proceedings continue)
21. I have considered, then, the Claimant’s application for costs in the sum of £7,833.80 including VAT. I have considered whether I should summarily assess the costs and decided that I should, and that then engages the principles set out in Rule 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules. I am going to assess costs on what is called the standard basis so I need to think about the reasonableness and the proportionality of the costs in the way that they were incurred, and whether they are reasonable and proportionate in amount.
22. Having looked at the schedule, bearing in mind that this is a case that has been prepared for trial, it has included two hearings including a hearing on 12 April 2024 as well as today’s hearing, it seems to me given that the work has been conducted principally by grade B and D fee earners at rates below London 2 guideline hourly rates, and looking at the overall figure, it is difficult to see how the Claimant could have prepared for trial for a figure less than the net figure claimed of about £6,500.
23. The question that I have asked, and the Claimant’s counsel did not know the answer to it today, is whether the Claimant can recover the VAT through its accounting processes. If it can, the award of costs will therefore by £6,574, but if it cannot I will allow the full amount claimed of £7,833.80. Mr Elliott says he cannot afford to pay those costs. That seems to me to be a separate issue.
(proceedings continue)
24. I will order that these costs become payable 28 days from today by you, but what you do not want to do is sit on your hands and do nothing. You either need to come to an agreement with the Claimant about how you are going to pay the costs, or make an application to Court to vary the Costs Order so you can pay by instalments. If you want to write this down, I do not know whether you have got a pen, the form you would need to fill in to achieve that is called an N245.
(proceedings continue)