Committal for Contempt of Court: Bassetlaw District Council -v- Downes

Committal for contempt of courtCounty Court

Case Number: M00MF327

In the County Court at Nottingham

19 January 2026

Before:

District Judge Dinan-Hayward

Between:

Bassetlaw District Council

-v-

Downes

Committal

DJ DINAN-HAYWARD (ex tempore)

  1. I am dealing with an application to commit Mr Downes to prison.  Mr Lee represents the Applicant District Council and Mr Downs is in person. The original order was dated 18 August 2025, which was an anti-social behaviour injunction for a period of two years ordered by Deputy District Judge Haythorne, so will expire in August 2027.  The application has come before the court on several occasions, and the order of 18 August 2025 was a final injunction order.  However, within three weeks of the making of that order, it was found to have been breached.  Those breaches were proved before the Court to the criminal standard, and Mr Downes was given a suspended sentence, for six months. 
  2. Matters then went quiet until 10 December 2025, when the Defendant was arrested again and brought before District Judge Heppell, sitting in Mansfield.  The judge adjourned that hearing to 19 December 2025 for the Court to deal with those breaches.  It came in front of Deputy District Judge Bains, who made no order at that hearing.  Mr Lee states that the Council proposed to make an application to commit Mr Downes to prison, not only in relation to the breaches of 10 December 2025, but also in relation to the breaches of the suspended sentence.
  3. One of the issues, from what Mr Downes has told me, is that he can buy alcohol, and probably cheaper alcohol than other places, from an off licence, which is within the zone that he is prohibited from entering.  Accordingly, whilst the Council must prove the allegations to the criminal standard, which is beyond reasonable doubt, Mr Downes has come to court today and says that he accepts that he has breached both the order of 18 August 2025 and the most recent breach, which breaches the order, and the terms of the suspended sentence. This now elevates the situation before the Court to a serious situation.
  4. I must consider the guidelines set out in Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631.  I need to consider future compliance with the injunction.  I do not honestly hold out much hope for future compliance now without Mr Downes having his issues and health challenges addressed and treated.  This feels very much like a cry for help.  If I were to just send Mr Downes away from the court, I suspect that there would be a further breach fairly soon.  Mr Downes accepts this and says it is very cold on the streets.  He does not have a fixed abode, and he sees prison as a solution to his housing needs.  There was some accommodation that may have been available to him, but he did not realise that until it was too late. 
  5. Accordingly, I am not optimistic about future compliance without Mr Downes receiving professional help to deal with his alcohol issues.  There have been additional drugs issues in the past.  He says that he has been to prison on and off for many years.  This is a cycle that needs to be broken and just sending him back into the community without the Court recognising that he has committed a serious breach of this order, is not doing him any favours. Neither is it benefiting the public, whom this order has tried to protect. On 18 August 2025 this court found that there was antisocial behaviour.  The order was made on a finding of allegations that Mr Downes, probably in drink, was causing a nuisance to members of the public.
  6. I am satisfied that the breaches have been established to the criminal standard, as Mr Downes admits them. I turn now to the issue of sentence. I agree culpability falls within band B of the sentencing guidelines.  I can see why Mr Lee says that Band A may be appropriate.  Certainly, there is culpability and it is a deliberate act.  In terms of Category, I agree it is Category 2.  Accordingly, the punishment for breach, including the breaches of the suspended sentence on 9 September 2025, means that Mr Downes, I am afraid, does have to go to prison, as his behaviour crosses the custody threshold. I am not sure that I have ever had a situation as a judge where this is, in effect, an application for committal by consent.  It just underlines to me the seriousness of the situation, but the positive is the fact that Mr Downes recognises that he needs some help.  That has got to be a good thing.
  7. Accordingly, I am going to commit Mr Downes to prison.  I look at rehabilitation as being part of the guidelines that I need to consider when I am punishing him for the breaches, and I do not think that he has the ability to stop breaching these injunctions without professional help.  I think that despite the fact he has tried, he needs professional help in order to get him, hopefully, accommodation and to be more settled, because living on the street is obviously not good for him or his mental health or his physical health, and, at the moment, as he says, it is very cold.
  8. Accordingly, this is a serious breach and the other previous breaches of which I understand there have been six allegations, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and I am going to send Mr Downes to prison for a period of 28 days.  That will be with immediate effect.  It is the shortest, most effective sentence, I can pass.  I have considered suspension of the sentence, but suspension was ordered on 9 September 2025, and Mr Downes accepts that he has breached that suspended sentence.  Accordingly, that has been tried on those breaches.
  9. What I hope is that a period of 28 days will mean that the help that Mr Downes desperately needs will be signposted to him in custody, and Mr Downes, I am hoping that you can then look at 2026, after this short period in prison, as being more positive, because, at the moment, I appreciate it is not particularly good for you.
  10. On 9 September 2025, the court imposed a suspended committal order of 28 days for earlier proven breaches. The suspension was on terms that the defendant comply with the injunction. The breach now admitted is a breach of the terms of the suspended order and therefore activates that sentence. The Defendant admits the breach.
  11. I take into account the defendant’s circumstances, including issues around alcohol use and homelessness. I have considered whether it would be unjust to activate the suspended sentence. Given the defendant’s repeated breaches, the previous suspension having failed to secure compliance, and the admitted breach today, I am satisfied that activation is not unjust. I have considered whether the sentence should be suspended again. Suspension was tried previously and the defendant accepts he has breached that suspended order. Further suspension would therefore be inappropriate.
  12. Accordingly, Mr Downs, I sentence you to 28 days’ imprisonment.  Both the activated suspended term and the sentence for the recent breaches will run concurrently.