Committal for Contempt of Court: Chief Constable of Northumbria Police -v- Scott
Claim Number: H01NE284
In the County Court at Newcastle
29 April 2024
Before:
District Judge Simpson
Between:
Chief Constable of Northumbria Police
-v-
Christopher Scott
UPON hearing solicitor advocate for the Claimant and Counsel on behalf of the Defendant
UPON the Defendant being subject to an injunction pursuant to section 1 Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 not to enter the Byker estate which is edged red on the map attached to the order dated 9th December 2021 and expires at midnight on 8th December 2024
UPON the Defendant being sentenced on 22 May 2022 to 7 days imprisonment for breach of the injunction dated 22 March 2022 and 31st March 2022 to run concurrently, such sentence to be suspended until 9th December 2024 and will not be put in force if during that time the Defendant complies with the order dated 9th December 2021.
UPON the Defendant admitting in court that on 26th April 2024 he was in the Byker estate forming part of the exclusion zone contained in the order of 9th December 2021 and as such has been guilty of contempt of this court by disobeying the said order of 9th December 2021
IT IS ORDERED THAT:-
- The suspended sentence dated 22 May 2022 of 7 days is hereby activated
- The court imposes a penalty of 2 days imprisonment for breach of the order dated 9th December 2021 to run concurrently with the sentence set out in paragraph 1
SCHEDULE – Sentencing Remarks in relation to the 2 days imprisonment
This is the third breach of this injunction by the Defendant, and whilst there has been a significant period between the first two breaches, in actual fact the Defendant has been in custody for other matters between the second breach until 2 weeks before the third breach. The Defendant was arrested within the exclusion zone for possession of a controlled drug.
It would appear that the level of culpability starting point would be C within the sentencing matrix. There was no intention to cause harm or distress and no harm or distress reasonably foreseeable from the breach. C also incudes guidance that the breach is incidental to some other lawful activity, this was not the case here due to the possession of drugs and therefore the culpability has been pushed into B.
In respect of the level of harm, this matter falls clearly into category 3 where the breach causes little or no harm or distress, no persons were actually inconvenienced and the defendant’s mere presence was in an unauthorised location.
The starting point is adjourned consideration and the category range for B3 of the matrix is adjourned consideration to 1 month. The Defendant has pleaded guilty at the first opportunity but is also subject to an activated suspended sentence. The Defendant states he was simply meeting his grandmother who lives within the exclusion zone and she has mobility issues. He states he sought to obtain funds for food as he is currently homeless. However this is the third breach for which a suspended sentence has been imposed for the earlier breaches. Whilst this matter is a category 3 breach with culpability B, a sentence of 2 days imprisonment to run currently with the existing sentence is appropriate in this case.