Committal for contempt of court: Chief Constable of Northumbria Police -v- John James White

Committal for contempt of courtCounty Court

Case number: L00GH084

In the County Court at Newcastle

1 November 2024

Before:

District Judge Gribble

Between:

Chief Constable of Northumbria Police

-v-

John James White

Legal Representation 

Mr Langley for the Claimant

Defendant unrepresented 

Judgment

Judgment date: 1 November 2024 

(start and end times cannot be noted due to audio format)

Reporting Restrictions Applied: No

“WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.” 

“This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in  accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved.”

District Judge Gribble:

  1. These are contempt proceedings for a breach of an order made by District Judge Phillips on 25 March 2024 where Mr White was made subject to a two-year antisocial behaviour injunction preventing him from entering areas edged in red in respect of the Mount Pleasant area of Gateshead, this included Milvain Street to Cross Street and the junction of Cross Street and Cobden Terrace. A power of arrest was attached to that order and was served on 4 April 2024, the Defendant not being present in Court when the original order was made.
  2. In terms of the history, the Defendant was arrested for a breach on 29 June which he admitted, and sentence was adjourned until 3 September. On that date no further order was made in respect of the breach. There have been further arrests, but breaches have not been progressed, however the two items that concern me today are an arrest on 25 October 2024 at around 10.20am I think, there is a witness statement from PC Brain that deals with that, and what PC Brain says that the Defendant at around 10.30 was found in his parents’ garden and the Defendant was arrested.
  3. No plea was entered on 25 October in front of me, but today a guilty plea has been entered. At that point the Defendant said that he wished to seek legal advice and was advised to do so as quickly as possible and was reminded of the terms of the injunction. However, the next night on the 26th I have found a breach proven. I found, hearing from PC Salmon, that the Defendant was in Cross Street at around 10.30 that night and the Defendant was arrested.
  4. A not guilty plea was entered to that on 27 October, and the Defendant bailed to today to link with my order adjourning from last Friday. It is correct that a further alleged breach has not been progressed today, and that to me is entirely appropriate in the circumstances. I am reminded by Mr Langley in terms of sentence that the purpose of sentencing is firstly to ensure compliance with orders of the Court, and Mr White I remind you that these are not orders just made for fun. They are orders that are seriously made to protect vulnerable people, in this case it was your mum and dad. Sentencing is secondly designed to provide punishment, and thirdly to look at securing rehabilitation.
  5. In term of the criteria set out in Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631 there are two breaches to be considered, both of which in my view were deliberate breaches where the Defendant has been in the garden of the property and I categorise those as culpability B which is a deliberate breach falling between the most serious which are very serious and persistent serious breaches, and lower culpability, a minor breach or breaches.
  6. In terms of harm the police urge me to look at category 2 harm which are cases falling between categories 1 and 3, category 1 where the breach causes very serious harm or distress, and category 3 where the breach causes little or no harm and distress. Mr Langley rightly reminds me that the orders were made to protect the Defendant’s elderly parents who are both vulnerable. He reminds me that there has been active attendance at the property and efforts to enter it, and therefore the starting point in my mind, accepting that we are in culpability B and category 2, is the starting point is one month in prison for each breach.
  7. In terms of aggravating factors, the Defendant’s parents are elderly and quite rightly need protection. In terms of mitigating factors, Mr White tells me that he has difficulties with alcohol, and he is going through a particularly difficult patch now in terms of his personal situation. He tells me that he is at risk of losing a property that he has tried very significantly for a long period of time to obtain.
  8. In terms of whether the custody threshold is crossed, I am satisfied that these two breaches in combination are so serious that the custody threshold is crossed, which means they are matters that are so serious that no penalty other than a custodial penalty is appropriate. This is not a case where I can give credit for any admissions or early guilty pleas, although the Defendant today did accept the first breach on the 25th but the other breach has been proved after hearing evidence. However, just because custody is warranted that does not mean that a custodial sentence must be imposed.
  9. In terms of the totality of the breaches, there are two breaches occurring within 24 hours of each other. It may be that Mr White has experienced a more recent decline in his ability to manage himself, but I begin with the starting point of a sentence of one month in custody for each matter to be concurrent, which means one month in total. I consider whether I can suspend that sentence. In this particular situation Mr White, I am going to suspend it, but you need to be in absolutely no doubt whatsoever that if there is another breach that suspension might be activated and you risk going to prison.
  10. You are still subject to the terms of the order, so stay away from that area. Do not go anywhere near it. Meet people where you can meet people, but do not put yourself at any risk of being arrested again, either in the morning or at night. If you feel like you are struggling, ring the recovery partnership. Do not go to your Mum and Dad, because that is likely to end with you in prison.
  11. My reasons for suspending are that there have been other options tried. This has not yet been tried. The Defendant has shown that he is capable of maintaining a distance from his parents from March to June and from June to September broadly, and I am giving him that opportunity to do so again. I am also conscious that a prison sentence imposed today may mean he loses his home, and therefore that is a knock on into other areas of vulnerability for him and of expense on the public purse.
  12. I am also conscious that this is the first time that I have dealt with Mr White, and the order made in March this year is a two year order. I do not want to see you again if I can avoid it, and therefore you will not serve any part of that sentence provided you comply with the terms of the suspension which are to keep to the terms of the order already made until March 2026. You are liable to serve all or part of any sentence of that month if you breach again.