Committal for Contempt of Court: Devon and Cornwall Police -v- Shorthouse

County CourtCommittal for Contempt of Court

Case Number: L00TQ030

In the County Court at Plymouth

19 January 2026

Before:

District Judge James

Between:

Devon and Cornwall Police

-v-

Shorthouse

Judgment

DISTRICT JUDGE JAMES:

  1. This is an application to commit Ms Shorthouse to prison for contempt of a civil injunction made by me on 9 October 2025. That injunction followed an earlier injunction made by District Judge Scott on 2 July 2024. It was replaced on 9 October 2025 by me because there was an additional clause that was inserted at that time with the agreement of Ms Shorthouse. That additional clause and prohibition was one that is not relevant for today’s proceedings but excluded Ms Shorthouse from the property that she was then living at.
  2. The one breach that, Ms Shorthouse, you are before me today in respect of is that on 17 January 2026 you breached Prohibitions 1 and 2 of the injunction by acting in an antisocial manner, causing harassment, alarm or distress at 68 Fisher Street. Prohibitions 1 and 2 of that injunction prohibit acting in an antisocial manner, that is to say in such a manner that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person; clause 2, that you are prohibited from using offensive, aggressive or obscene words or gestures in a public place such that it causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
  3. The circumstances of the breach that are before me this afternoon are that Ms Shorthouse had acquired a letting of Big Tree Holiday Flats at 68 Fisher Street. During the course of the evening on 17 January, I am told by counsel for Ms Shorthouse that Ms Shorthouse was suffering with dental issues, an abscess, for which she was due to receive treatment. According to the evidence, Ms Shorthouse was in drink and Ms Shorthouse, from previous dealings that I have had with her, has alcohol dependency issues, as well as other vulnerabilities, including she is said to have been the victim of domestic abuse from her previous relationship.
  4. The circumstances are that Ms Shorthouse accepts swearing and shouting, she used words to the effect of “fuck off and leave me alone” and that she was shouting outside her window and that in doing so she caused disturbance to Ms Treadgold, who was the person responsible for letting the holiday apartment to Ms Shorthouse, and to the other neighbours of that property.
  5. That has real relevance in your case, Ms Shorthouse, because the purpose of this injunction was to protect other neighbours from your antisocial behaviour. They were different neighbours at the neighbourhood from which you have been excluded, but nonetheless there is a pattern of causing disturbance and antisocial behaviour to your neighbours, wherever those neighbours may be. These people are simply trying to go about their day-to-day business, have quiet enjoyment of their own properties, and engage in lawful civilian life. These are all interfered with when you behave in the manner that you do.
  6. I take into account that you had dental issues, I take into account the vulnerabilities that you have outlined, but on the other side of the balance I have the fact that you were only before me a little over four weeks ago. If that is said to be you staying out of trouble, it really does not demonstrate a very successful attempt to do so. It is a persistent pattern of behaviour by you of being in drink and of causing a nuisance, annoyance and disturbance to those who do not deserve to be subject to such behaviour.
  7. When sentencing you I have regard to the Court of Appeal decision in Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA 1631. In that decision the Court of Appeal set out the objectives of sentencing for breaching an injunction of this kind as being to ensure future compliance with the court order, punishment, and rehabilitation, in that order of importance. They go on to endorse the guidelines and categories that were set out by the Civil Justice Council and there is a dispute between counsel today as to which the correct category for this case is. The police contend that I am dealing here with Category A2, the defence, on Ms Shorthouse’s behalf, say that I am dealing with B3. The categories are A, high culpability, dealing with very serious breach or persistent serious breaches; B, deliberate breach falling between A and C: and C, lower culpability – minor breach or breaches. It seems to me that there are persistent breaches in your case. Ms Shorthouse, this is somewhere in the region of the twelfth breach that you have found yourself before this court for. It is slightly less clear and more open to debate whether this constitutes a serious breach, but certainly it is a persistent breach.
  8. In my assessment, this case is one by reason of its persistence that falls within B rather than A because whilst it is a persistent breach it is not on the facts and on a spectrum of objective cases one that might properly be described as the most serious of breaches.
  9. Turning then to the levels of harm, Category 1 concerns a breach causing very serious harm or distress. Nobody contends that this breach falls within that category. Category 2, cases falling between Categories 1 and 3, and Category 3 – a breach causing little or no harm or distress.
  10. In my assessment, this case falls within Category 2 and therefore the correct Category is B2, which has a starting point of one month in custody and a category range of adjourned consideration to three months.
  11. In sentencing you, Ms Shorthouse, I have regard to the objectives of the court in sentencing and I have regard to the category range. This offending and breaching of the injunction must stop and there is a clear disregard in you for the court’s orders with a lack of any real attempt to adjust your behaviour such as to ensure that you do comply with the terms of the injunction order. I have regard to the fact that you have admitted the breach and done so today at the first opportunity to do so, credit must be given to you for doing so. I have regard to the fact that you have spent some time in custody over the weekend by reason of the time of day at which you were arrested. But I cannot accept the submissions made on your behalf that the proper approach to this case is to have regard simply to the time that you have already spent in custody. I do make full allowance for this time. I also make allowance for the fact that you were suffering from a dental problem at the time, but that does not justify shouting and swearing. Other people have dental issues and are able to endure this and behave in a reasonable manner. You failed to do so, with disregard to the injunction on you.
  12. In all of the circumstances of this case, the correct sentence for you I find is one of seven weeks in custody and I shall therefore make that order. That reduces your sentence from one of three months to two months and takes into account the time you have spent in custody already and that is how I arrive at the figure of seven weeks in this case, of which you will serve half in custody.
  13. So the order that I shall make is that you shall be committed to prison for a period of seven weeks. You have an absolute right to appeal against this decision without seeking permission to appeal. You must do so, if you wish to exercise that right, within 21 days of today’s date. The order that I make therefore is one of seven weeks and I will also order that there shall be a transcript of my sentencing remarks.