Committal for Contempt of Court: Barber -v- Berry and Mainzer

County CourtCommittal for Contempt of Court

Case Number: L00MB707

In the County Court at Middlesbrough

19 February 2026

Before:

His Honour Judge Robinson BEM

Between:

Judith Barber

-v-

Adam Berry

and

Diane Mainzer

Judgment

Before His Honour Judge Robinson BEM sitting at the County Court at Middlesbrough on 19 February 2026.

The Parties:

  • The Claimant is Judith Barber represented by D Medd, Counsel
  • The 1st Defendant is Adam Berry represented by G Wood, Counsel
  • The 2nd Defendant is Diane Mainzer represented by K Clark, Solicitor

Recitals:

  1. The hearing was today listed for sentencing of the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant.
  2. UPON His Honour Judge Robinson having received and considered written submissions from the parties which were supplemented during the hearing by way of brief oral submissions.
  3. UPON the Court’s findings of contempt are set out in the Schedule to the Order dated 20 November 2025, such a schedule being further annexed to this Order
  4. UPON the Court making injunctions against the 1st Defendant, and the 2nd Defendant in the terms annexed to this Order, neither Defendant opposing the same.

It is ORDERED that:

  1. Adam Berry is sentenced to a total term of 60 days’ imprisonment. The sentence shall be suspended for a period of four years from today’s date, 19 February 2030, being the duration of the injunction. The sentence shall not take effect unless, during that period, Adam Berry breaches the terms of the injunction or otherwise commits a further contempt of court.
  2. Adam Berry shall pay 75% of the Claimant’s costs of these proceedings, summarily assessed in the sum of £2,124, to Cygnet Law, Portland House, Redcar, TS10 1DH. Such sum shall be paid in full upon the sale of 68 High Street, Lingdale, or within 6 months of today’s date, 19 August 2026, whichever is the earlier.
  3. The determination of penalty in respect of Diane Mainzer’s contempt is adjourned for two years from today’s date, 19 February 2028, being the duration of the injunction. In the event of any further breach of the injunction or contempt of court within that period, the matter of penalty shall be restored for consideration.
  4. Diane Mainzer shall pay 25% of the Claimant’s costs of these proceedings, summarily assessed in the sum of £708, to Cygnet Law, Portland House, Redcar, TS10 1DH. Such sum shall be paid in full upon the sale of 68 High Street, Lingdale, or within six months of today’s date, 19 August 2026, whichever is the earlier.

Schedule: Findings of the Court

No.DateIncidents
103.03.2025Whilst the claimant took photographs of her garden boundary, Mr Berry shouted at her “stop taking photos, I am building a summer house which is legal”. This is in breach of paragraph 2 of his undertaking, not to contact the claimant in any way.
205.03.2025Mr Berry stared at and filmed the claimant with his mobile phone at close range, as the claimant walked through her garden. This This is in breach of paragraph 1 of his undertaking not to harass, intimidate and pester the claimant.
325.03.2025Mr Berry stared at the claimant until she returned to her house, in breach of paragraph 1 of his undertaking not to harass, intimidate or pester the claimant. 
422.04.2025Mr Berry stared at the claimant while she was in her garden, and pointed his phone camera directly at the claimant as if filming her, as she walked through her garden back to her house. This is in breach of paragraph 1 of his undertaking not to harass, intimidate of pester the claimant.
524.04.2025  Mr Berry posted a video to Facebook in which he stated that the claimant was taking him to Court and that her fence was rotten and falling down, failing to mention that the fence was damaged because of his removal of large parts of it in the preceding months. Mr Berry’s video was an attempt to share false information about the claimant with neighbours, to cause the claimant harassment, in breach of paragraph 1 of his undertaking not to harass, intimidate, or pester the claimant.
629.04.2025Mr Berry spent time at filming the claimant’s garden and speaking directly to her CCTV camera, saying “Goodnight camera, hope you got volume on it … silly cow”. He then shouted “Can you hear me if you’ve got audio, I’m testing”. This is in breach of paragraph 1 of his undertaking not to harass, intimidate or pester the claimant, and of paragraph 2 not to contact the claimant in any way.
704.05.2025Mr. Berry placed a tree branch over the boundary line in breach of paragraph 3 of the undertaking.
809.05.2025Mr Berry reached over the boundary of the claimant’s garden to move the same tree branch on top of the claimant’s rose bush, in breach of paragraph 3 of his undertaking not to enter, remove or replace any part of the claimant’s boundaries and must not act in any way to damage the boundaries.
914.05.2025Mr Berry stared at the claimant for a prolonged period and shook his head at her, in breach of paragraph 1 of his undertaking not to harass, intimidate or pester the claimant.
1003.06.2025Ms Mainzer stood in close proximity to the claimant, staring directly at her and filming her on her phone. This is in breach of paragraph 1 of her undertaking not to harass, intimidate or pester the claimant.
1104.06.2025Mr Berry repositioned his chair in his garden to turn and face the claimant while she was in her garden, in breach of paragraph 1 of his undertaking not to harass, intimidate or pester the claimant.
1213.06.2025Mr Berry stood outside of the claimant’s home, speaking loudly about the claimant to a neighbour in a harassing way. Mr Berry pointed directly at her CCTV camera and said “I’d send her back and all”, having discussed sending asylum seekers “back”. Mr Berry falsely told the neighbour that the claimant had reported them to the council, and would likely have reported that neighbour also. This is in breach of paragraph 1 of his undertaking not to harass, intimidate of pester the claimant.
1319.06.2025Mr Berry shared a video on Facebook of a comedy sketch relating to a woman checking CCTV. He wrote “Diane Mainzer does this remind you of anyone? Illegal, secret, clandestine and surreptitious CCTV camera hidden in a plan pot – next doors garden – pointing directly at our garden chairs – yes, the same camera that moves position every time we move our chairs! Adult children @ Cygnet Law”. He went on to comment on the post “reckons she’s still a primary school teacher and we’re dumb enough to be policed” and then “vinegar tits”. Mr Berry’s intention was to cause indirect harassment to the claimant by sharing false information in respect of the claimant with neighbours in this way, in breach of paragraph 1 of his undertaking not to harass, intimidate or pester the claimant.
1403.07.2025Mr Berry pushed a metal cat cage against the claimant’s fence post, as a visual threat against her pet cats. This is in breach of paragraph 4 of his undertaking not to threaten the property or chattels, including pets, of the claimant. 
1508.07.2025Mr Berry encouraged a neighbour to cut the claimants plants down, in breach of paragraph 1 of his undertaking not to harass, intimidate or pester the claimant and paragraph 4, not to threaten the property of the claimant. 
1611.07.2025Mr Berry placed a handwritten sign next to the claimant’s property, with the words “vinegar tits” and an arrow pointing at the claimant’s property. He then shared a photograph of the sign pointing at the claimant’s property to Facebook. This is in breach of paragraph 1 of the undertaking not to harass, intimidate or pester the claimant.
1713.07.2025Mr Berry shouted loudly at the claimant “stop fucking slandering me, silly old cow”, and said “there’s some ugly people round here”. This is in breach of paragraph 1 of the undertaking not to harass, intimidate or pester the claimant, and paragraph 2 not to contact the claimant in any way.
1814.07.2025Mr Berry removed pieces of the claimant’s fence, in breach of paragraph 3 of his undertaking not to remove or replace any part of the boundaries and not to act in any way to damage the boundaries.   Mr Berry pointed his phone at the claimant continuously as she returned to her house, as if filming. This is in breach of paragraph 1 of his undertaking not to harass, intimidate or pester the claimant.
1919.07.2025Mr Berry spent time filming the claimant’s garden and talking loudly about the claimant. This is in breach of paragraph 1 of his undertaking not to harass, intimidate or pester the claimant. 
2012.08.2025Mr Berry removed further pieces of wood from the claimant’s fence, in breach of his undertaking at paragraph 3 not to enter, remove or replace any part of the claimant’s boundaries and not to act in any way to damage the boundaries.
2114.08.2025Mr Berry placed the sign with “vinegar tits” written on it along the boundary line facing in to the claimant’s garden, along with a skeleton and some bottles of cat repellent. This is in breach of his undertaking at paragraph 1 not to harass, intimidate or pester the claimant or to threaten violence against her, paragraph 2 not to contact the claimant in any way, and paragraph 4 not to act in any way to threaten the property of the claimant. The statement to the Court that this was a Halloween decoration was plainly a lie.
2203.09.2025 Mr Berry stood very close to the claimant’s front door smoking a cigarette, without any necessary cause to do so. When the claimant whispered to her daughter, Mr Berry shouted at the claimant that he could stand where he wants and to “keep your nose out”. This is in breach of paragraph 1 of his undertaking not to harass, intimidate or pester the claimant, and paragraph 2 not to contact the claimant in any way.