Committal for Contempt of Court: Chester West and Cheshire BC -v- Swift and Grannell

Committal for contempt of courtCounty CourtCommittal for Contempt of Court

Case Number: M00CH084

In the County Court at Chester

11 November 2025

Before:

His Honour Judge Howells

Between:

Chester West and Cheshire BC

-v-

Swift and Grannell

Judgment One

HHJ HOWELLS:

  1. The matter is listed before me today for a committal hearing in relation to Ms Jade Grannell. The claimant is here with witnesses ready to proceed by order of District Judge Sanderson in this matter on 31 October. The matter came before him on that date.  The claimant was represented, the second defendant did not attend.  This matter has got a long history of the second defendant not attending, which is reflected in the fact that she does not, it appears, have a permanent address.  At that October hearing the Court recorded that if she did not attend this matter, which was this hearing, which was then listed, the Court would proceed in her absence.
  2. However I am treating that afresh, so to speak.  First of all, I have got to be satisfied, on balance, that the claimant has been properly served with notice of this hearing and the N600. 
  3. I have heard on oath today the evidence from Paula Bagnall, who is the antisocial behaviour officer acting on behalf of the claimant,  she has previously filed various certificates of service in relation to this matter.  However, the question of service was specifically dealt with by District Judge Sanderson in his hearing in October.  He dealt with it as follows:  That following no less than two attempts to effect personal service upon the second defendant (that is Ms Grannell) the claimant may thereafter serve her by delivering these documents to three addresses which the second defendant has provided to the claimant.  It is being noted that the second defendant, having notified the court of her address for service as number 3 Somerville Crescent, as set out in a previous order of Deputy District Judge Brown, dated 25 September, it then set out those addresses. 
  4. I am satisfied, upon hearing the evidence on oath of Ms Bagnall, that she has taken steps to affect personal service both on 31 October and on 3 November, she attending at the addresses that had previously been provided by the defendant in an attempt to personally serve, but there being no one identifying as being the defendant present on each of these addresses.  Those were, therefore, more than two attempts to affect personal service.  She, therefore, left documents,  first of all the unsealed and later the sealed copies of orders and the updated N600 at each of those addresses.  She also knocked on the doors at one of the addresses, the 12 Seymour, which was the address provided by the defendant.  There was an elderly lady present who appeared concerned and said that she had no knowledge of the defendant. 
  5. As at 24 Raby Court, a gentleman took the papers saying that he knew the defendant but she was not there.  At 3 Somerville, which was the address given by the defendant as her address for service on the initial attendance on 31 October, there was no one – there was not an ability to get in, and therefore on 3 November Ms Bagnall returned and she left the documents there.  There was somebody living at that address who had previously said that they knew the defendant.  The claimants have therefore taken all reasonable steps to bring this hearing and this application to the notice of the defendant.  I appreciate that it is a serious matter where the defendant’s  liberty is threatened, but the claimant has used all means within their power to bring it to her attention, not only by attempt at personal serving, but also hand delivering the documents and leaving them by way of substituted service at the addresses. 
  6. These are not random addresses, these are addresses which were specifically provided by the defendant where she said that she could be contacted and in relation to number 3 Somerville Crescent, where she said that she would be able to get documentation and be served.  Therefore this is the address provided by the defendant herself.  I am also told, although there is no direct evidence as to it by counsel, that the police have an outstanding warrant for the arrest of Ms Grannell.  I do not take that into consideration, but I am told it, and I repeat it for the sake of completeness.  In all of those circumstances, it appears to me that the claimant has complied with the order of District Judge Sanderson.  I have gone further and considered whether that was sufficient in terms of service, and I am satisfied in the circumstances of this case that all reasonable steps have been taken to bring this hearing and this application  to the attention of Ms Grannell.  She has not attended today.
  7. In the circumstances, whilst I recognize entirely that this is a very serious matter, I conclude that the defendant has been given ample opportunity to attend.  She has also been given ample opportunity to obtain legal advice and representation.  The N600 which has, as I have concluded, been appropriately served by both personal and substituted service, contains within it the appropriate warnings to obtain legal advice, obtain legal representation, and the other caveats in terms of right to remain silent and the like.  Therefore, that has all been appropriately complied with.  Also, the serious nature of these proceedings has also been stated within all of those papers which I have concluded have been appropriately served. 
  8. I also note that the order of District Judge Sanderson at the last hearing specifically said within it that if Ms Grannell did not attend court today,  then the hearing would proceed in her absence.  Therefore she was given that warning.  Of course, I exercised my discretion independently from that order because I do consider whether it is appropriate, given that there is a potential threat of somebody’s liberty. On balance, recognising the factors that I have set out, and also recognising the allegations that are made, it appears to me that it is appropriate to proceed in her absence.  If she, upon receipt of  whatever order is finally made, disagrees, she would have the opportunity to apply to set it aside of course, as with any order made in a party’s absence, and I weigh that into consideration too.  In those circumstances, I am happy to proceed today with the committal application.

Judgment

Between:

Chester West and Cheshire BC

-v-

Grannell

HHJ HOWELLS:

  1. This matter proceeds today on the committal application for Jade Grannell. For the reasons that I have previously given in an earlier judgment,  I am satisfied that she has been served with these proceedings and notice of this hearing and that it is appropriate to proceed in her absence.  I have therefore heard submissions from counsel on behalf of the claimant.  I have heard the evidence of Mr Hunt on behalf of the claimant.  I have also considered the witness statement and affidavit  (albeit it is in witness statement form pursuant to an order of previous judge) of PC Malcolm and other arresting officers. 
  2. Insofar as there is contained within the bundle affidavit of Sarah Hickey, I have not taken that into consideration for reasons given at the outset of this hearing, Ms Hickey did not give evidence before the Court.  In those circumstances I give no weight to what she says.  I am satisfied that the by way of the N600 the appropriate warnings were given to Ms Grannell in relation to today and that she was aware that she had the right to representation, she had the right to remain silent, she had the right against self-incrimination and she was also told that the matter may or would proceed in her absence, which it has done.  I have determined that was the appropriate way forward. 
  3. The position is that the current N600 as updated is contained within the bundle and contains a summary of facts which are said to constitute the contempt at paragraph 12.  The original order was made by way of an injunction order with power of arrest dated 27 March 2025, made by Deputy District Judge Connolly, pursuant to the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act.  I am satisfied on the evidence before me that that was properly served upon the defendant and that she knew of the terms of the order and the power of arrest.  In fact, she has been arrested on at least two occasions pursuant to that and brought before the court and all of those alleged breaches are now  subsumed within the current application. 
  4. I have, therefore, to look at each of the individual breaches and to consider whether, on the evidence before me, I am satisfied to the appropriate standard, so that I am sure, that the claimant has proved the breach of the injunction order  I have taken into consideration both the written and oral evidence that has been provided which I have referred to.
  5.   I say in relation to Mr Hunt, that although there may have been some  lack of perhaps clarity in relation to previous dates that he has provided, he has confirmed what he said in his sworn affidavit and he has not been challenged in relation to it on behalf of the defendant. 
  6. Nevertheless, in her absence, I considered it to be appropriate to ask a couple of questions, particularly when I have seen in the documents provided, that Ms Grannell was, for example, suggesting that she was not threatening Mr Hunt nor demanding money from him, but simply asking for repayment of money that she says he was holding on her behalf.  Having heard Mr Hunt address those issues, I am satisfied that his evidence is clear and  reliable.
  7. Therefore, turning to the incidents in question.  The first alleged breach is that on 25 September 2025 Jade Grannell attended a property known as 110A Princes Road, which is within the exclusion zone specified in the injunction, and at 7.50 in the morning, she was arrested there.  110A is the property which Mr Hunt lives in.  She is not permitted to be that.
  8. I have been referred specifically to the statements of PC Malcolm at page 131 and page 134, and I am satisfied on the evidence that I am sure  Ms Grannell was present at the property in breach of the injunction.  The evidence of Mr Hunt in relation to that incident did not add anything and I do not put any additional weight on anything on the basis of what he said because his evidence was not clear as to that.  However, PC Malcolm’s statement, whilst it has not been confirmed on oath, I consider to be of such significant weight, particularly when I note that the defendant was in fact produced at court following that arrest in any event.  Therefore, on the evidence , I find that allegation proved. 
  9. It is also alleged that on the same date, when police searched Ms Grannell upon her arrest, she was found to be in possession of two pipes which were known to be used for smoking crack, heroin, thus using illegal drugs at or in the vicinity of the residential premises.  In that regard, I have looked carefully at the statement of PC Malcolm and he confirms in brief form that she had in her possession two crack pipes.  He does not say that she had any crack or heroin with her or that the pipes had been recently used.  Having the facility to use drugs in the vicinity is not in my judgment sufficient to satisfy me, on balance, that there had been the use of drugs.  The evidence is insufficient in that regard to satisfy me, and I therefore do not find that the second breach alleged is proved, and I dismiss that. 
  10. Turning to 14 October, it is alleged that at 0030, Ms Grannell attended 110A Princes Road  which is within the exclusion zone.  Also in that regard I have considered the statement of Mr Hunt and I considered it to be persuasive.  It is at page 139 of the bundle.  He gives details in his statement as to what happened, which I will come to in a moment.  However, the clear evidence is  that Ms Grannell was there and I found that breach proved as the entry was into the exclusion zone.
  11.  It is also alleged as to the next breach, that when Ms Grannell entered, she entered with another male who stole money from and verbally abused Mr Hunt, and therefore that was conduct which was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, likely to cause nuisance or annoyance, and engaged or permitted others to engage in abusive or insulting or threatening behaviour and entered into the exclusion zone. 
  12. Again, I have considered  that this allegation of breach to be supported by the evidence of Mr Hunt, which he confirmed on oath today.   I am satisfied that Ms Grannell was in breach of the injunction in terms of engaging or permitted others to engage in using abusive or insulting or threatening behaviour, which is the third subparagraph.  I am not satisfied in terms of other people’s behaviour because there is no direct evidence as to what she did, save for encouraging others through her conduct and bringing other people there.  Therefore subparagraph three is proven in that limited way.     
  13. The next alleged breach is on 20 October, the defendant attended and entered 110A Princess Road, again within the exclusion zone, demanded money from Mr Hunt, making him feel scared and unsafe, and he gave her £100 to stop her spreading rumours about him.  That is said to be in breach of paragraphs one, two and seven of the injunction order.  I found Mr Hunt’s evidence as to that to be unshaken.  I find him, therefore, to be a witness that I can rely on.  Also I found those allegations proved and I find breaches in that regard. 
  14. The next allegation is that on t on 22 October, at about 21.30, again, the defendant attended at the same address (thus, entering the exclusion zone) banged on the door, shouted demands for money from Mr Hunt, screamed, shouted and disturbed the neighbours.  She was not granted access.  I have considered the witness evidence of Mr Hunt in this regard, which is in affidavit form and which is confirmed on oath, and I am satisfied, that those breaches as set out on those facts are proved.  Therefore I found the breach proved in that regard.
  15.  The next breach that is contained in the schedule is on 27 October, when it said that there was again another attendance.  There was again no direct evidence before me, and upon my invitation to do so, that allegation was withdrawn. 
  16. Nevertheless, I have found that there have been breaches in relation to the matters that I have set out above, which will be reflected in the court order.   I find therefore, that there have been, as I said, breaches by Ms Grannell on a number of occasions of the injunction order, which she had had personally served upon her and of which she therefore knew and knew the consequences.