Committal for Contempt of Court: Crowley
Case Number: L00BH285
In the County Court at Bournemouth
15 April 2024
Before:
District Judge Veal
Between:
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council
-v-
Mark Crowley
Judgment
District Judge Veal:
1. Mr Crowley, you are subject to an antisocial behaviour injunction made on 25 March 2024, and that was served upon you on 26 March 2024.
2. You have been brought to court in respect of five breaches of that injunction which were said to have been committed between 30 March and 1 April 2024, and they are the subject of a contempt application which I know you have received through the prison service this week. That application is dated 9 April 2024.
3. You were arrested on 7 April 2024 and brought before the Court on 8 April 2024. On that occasion, I adjourned so that you could obtain legal advice, and you were remanded in custody on that date. You told the Court today that you have tried to obtain legal advice and have been unable to do so, and you have invited the Court to proceed without your having received legal advice or having been represented today.
4. As a result of that, I have put the five breaches to you. You have pleaded guilty to the first breach alleged and part of the third one.
5. In relation to the third one, the basis of what you accept is that you shouted:
“You fucking grasses.”
Then shouted at your dog:
“They might call the RSPCA on you again, fucking grasses.”
And that you were waving your hands in the air. What you do not accept is that you stood in front of a neighbour’s window and shouted something to him.
6. The Claimant has invited the Court to proceed to sentence you today. The admitted breaches, it seems to me, involve, in relation to the first, you causing a nuisance directly in breach of paragraph 1 of the injunction through allowing cannabis to be smelt throughout the property, and in relation to allegation 3, in addition to causing a nuisance, you used threatening or foul language. The more serious of those two matters it seems to me is allegation 3, in which your behaviour was targeted at neighbours whose complaints had led to the making of the injunction in the first place.
7. You have been told about your rights to silence, privilege against self-incrimination, and your entitlement to representation, as I have said.
8. The Court has in mind a guideline that is set out in a case called Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631, and what the Claimant says is that both breaches fall into category B in terms of culpability. In other words, what they say is that it was a deliberate breach by you. On one view, it seems to me, the third breach could fall into a higher culpability category, in that that breach was not only deliberate but one could also say it was a flagrant breach of the injunction and that your motive was, in some sense, retaliatory. I propose to accept what the Claimant says in terms of how I should treat or fit that breach into the guideline, but to reflect the seriousness of that particular breach in where it falls within the category range.
9. The Claimant’s witnesses talk about your behaviour being annoying or causing a nuisance. It is difficult to see in those circumstances how the harm caused is in fact greater than category 3 in respect of the either of the breaches which you have admitted, so I therefore take as my starting point for both breaches adjourned consideration of the matter.
10. However, it seems to me that the breaches are aggravated in that the terms of the injunction are clear. Your breaches took place very shortly after that injunction was initially served on you. They were focussed across a short period of time, and what I have already said is that at least one of those breaches seems to have been targeted at the people who reported you in the first place.
11. It is accepted that you have some previous convictions, including a conviction in 2019 for possession of an offensive weapon, but the Court takes into account that there have been no further criminal matters which you have faced since then.
12. In mitigation, you have told the Court that you have not had the support that you have needed, that you are seeking help through your GP and that you have had ups and downs in terms of your own mental wellbeing. You are seeking assistance from We Are With You in respect of issues around alcohol, and that you are going to try and move to a different property once you have got the time and space to make the relevant enquiries. You have expressed some remorse today, and the Court gives you some credit for that, although it does seem to be that the first time that you have expressed remorse is today.
13. Given the aggravating and mitigating factors and what I have said about the seriousness of allegation 3, I therefore propose to move up within the range, so I will impose a sentence of 24 days in respect of each of the breaches which you have admitted. I am prepared to accept that, because we adjourned last week so you could obtain legal advice and you have not been able to obtain it, that you admitted your wrongdoing at the first opportunity, so I will give you maximum credit for that, so I will reduce the sentence imposed on both allegations to 16 days.
14. I have considered whether or not to suspend sentence. In practice, it makes no difference for reasons I am about to explain but, in any event, it would have been my view that an appropriate punishment could only be achieved by imposition of an immediate custodial sentence.
15. You have taken some steps towards trying to rehabilitate yourself or address the underlying causes of what has happened. Taking all of those things together and having in mind the principle of totality, I will impose that sentence, namely one of 16 days in relation to each breach. Those sentences are to run concurrently.
16. You have spent eight days on remand and so you are treated as having served 16 days. What that then means in practice is that you will be released today.
17. I need to tell you that you remain under the terms of the injunction. You need to stick by the rules set out in that injunction. I need to tell you also that you have a right to purge your contempt, and you have a right to appeal. The time limit for any appeal is 21 days.
18. That concludes the matter for today Mr Crowley. You do need to stick to the terms of the injunction. You need to continue to try and find yourself the help that you have articulated that you propose to do.