Committal for Contempt of Court: Derby City Council -v- Denise Biddle
Case Number: K00DE672
Derby County Court
15 August 2024
Before:
District Judge Pittman
Between:
Derby City Council
-v-
Denise Biddle
Order
This case concerns an injunction made by DJ Davies on 30th August 2024 under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
1a of this injunction stated the defendant, Ms Biddle, was forbidden from entering or remaining on Fulham Road, Mackworth, Derby at any time. The Defendant’s mother lives on Fulham Road.
The injunction was made until 30th August 2025 and a power of arrest was attached to 1a. The injunction was made as the court was satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the Defendant had engaged in anti-social behaviour that is conduct capable of causing harassment, alarm, and distress to any person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises and/or conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance and annoyance to any person.
On 3rd October 2023 the Defendant was arrested for an alleged breach of the injunction and was brought before DJ Davies at Derby County Court. On 6th October 2023 the claimant issued a contempt application, and the matter was listed for a further hearing.
The Defendant applied to discharge the injunction. This was on the basis that since the injunction in August 2023 the Defendant said her mother had been hospitalised and was released home to Fulham Road on 30th September 2023. This application was listed for a hearing on 16th October 2023. The Defendant did not attend the hearing. The Defendant’s application to discharge the undertaking was heard in her absence and dismissed.
On 7th November 2023 the Claimant’s contempt application was heard. The court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant was guilty of contempt of court. She was sentenced to 14 days in prison. This was suspended on terms that the Defendant comply with the terms of the undertaking until 17th October 2024.
On 5th August 2024 the Defendant was arrested for four alleged breaches of the injunction.
A hearing took place before DJ Davies on 6th August 2024. The Defendant admitted 3 breaches namely:
1. On 4.5.24 around 5.30pm she was present on Fulham Road
2. On 13.5.24 4.30pm she was present on Fulham Road
3. On 29.5.24 around 5.55pm she was present on Fulham Road
Today the Defendant has admitted the 4th breach that on 6.4.24 around 10pm she was present on Fulham Road.
The 3 principles of sentencing in civil proceedings are to give punishment for breach of an order of the court, to secure future compliance with the court’s order and to rehabilitate which is a natural companion to the second objective.
The options available to me today are no order, an unlimited fine or a custodial sentence either immediate or suspended.
In terms of culpability although I recognise that the Defendant’s mother lives on Fulham Road this does not reduce her culpability. She is aware of the terms of the injunction and she already has a suspended sentence. I am of the view culpability falls into category B. In terms of the harm, whilst the Defendant has breached the order she has not engaged in anti social behaviour, save for a minor incident. It has not caused serious harm however there is a long history to this case and the behaviour has caused some distress. I consider that this falls into Category 2. The starting point for this is 1 month’s imprisonment.
The Claimant has breached the suspended sentence. In mitigation I am told the Defendant is genuinely remorseful. I am told she was caring for her mother who is in her early 90s and lives on Fulham Road. I’m told that her mother was walking to the end of the street to meet her but by April 2024 her mobility was failing, and she could not get to the end of the street. The Defendant says she got a taxi to her mother’s home in Fulham Road to drop items off and take her mother out however the injunction is clear that the Defendant cannot do this. There were significant reasons that the injunction was made and so this is not an excuse to breach it. The Defendant has admitted the breaches at the earliest opportunity. She admitted 3 breaches at the last hearing without sight of the witness statements and admits the fourth today. I am told she presented herself to the police station once aware they wanted to speak with her.
The starting point for each breach is 1 month in custody. In my view the breaches are so serious that the custody threshold has been passed. This is the second time the Defendant has been arrested since the injunction was made last year and there have been 4 breaches since the suspended sentence. The breaches attract a sentence of 30 days. There should a reduction for an early guilty plea which reduces it to 20 days.
There is already a suspended sentence and this should be activated as it required compliance with the injunction. The Defendant has not complied with its terms. The Defendant did comply with the order for approximately 6 months so I half this sentence.
I have considered the totality of the punishment and remind myself that the sentence overall must reflect all the offending behaviour and be just and proportionate. I remind myself a custodial sentence must be the least period which the seriousness of the breaches can properly justify. I do not consider that any sentence can be suspended. There has been a suspended order and this has been breached. I order that the Defendant is sentenced to prison for 14 days. The suspended sentence will run concurrently. This is less than the starting point but in my view is sufficient to achieve the sentencing objectives.
Ms Biddle you are therefore being sentenced to be committed to prison for 14 days. You will be released automatically halfway through sentence by law. You have the right to appeal this decision. Permission is not needed. You also have the right to purge your contempt and can make a formal application.