Committal for Contempt of Court: Moat Homes Limited -v- Platt

County CourtCommittal for Contempt of Court

Claim Number: K01CM208

In the County Court at Chelmsford Justice Centre

3 September 2024

Before:
His Honour Judge Duddridge

Between:

Moat Homes Limited

-v-

Adrian Platt

Judgment

Before His Honour Judge Duddridge sitting at the County Court at Chelmsford Justice Centre, sitting at
Chelmsford Crown Court

UPON hearing Counsel for the Claimant and the Defendant not attending

AND UPON the Court being satisfied that the Defendant has been given notice of today’s hearing and sufficient
opportunity to prepare for it, including to seek legal representation, the Defendant has no good reason for not
attending today and that is in accordance with the overriding objective to proceed in his absence

AND FOR THE REASONS set out in the Judgment annexed to this Order

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

  1. The Defendant is committed to prison for 4 months, suspended until 4pm on 25 March 2026 on condition that
    the Defendant complies with the Injunction made by DDJ Livesley on 26 March 2024.
  2. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant’s costs of these committal proceedings summarily assessed on the
    indemnity basis in the sum of £5,985.55 by 26 August 2024.
  3. The Defendant has the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal against this Order without needing permission to
    appeal. Any such appeal must be lodged with the Court of Appeal by 4pm on 3 September 2024.

Dated 12 August 2024

JUDGMENT

  1. On 26 March 2024 DDJ Livesley made an anti-social behaviour injunction order against Mr Platt (“the Injunction”). Paragraph 1 of the Injunction prohibited Mr Platt from remaining on, entering or attempting to enter Parker Court, Waterside, Bradwell on Sea, CM0 1QU.
  2. At a hearing on 4 July 2024, which Mr Platt did not attend, I found that he had been served with notice of that hearing which drew attention to his right to seek legal representation, he had had sufficient time to prepare for the hearing, he had provided no good reason for not attending and had chosen not to attend, there was no evidence that he had attempted to obtain legal representation, and it was just and proportionate to proceed in his absence to deal with the allegations that he had breached the Injunction.
  3. I proceeded in Mr Platt’s absence to make the following findings:
    a. The Injunction was personally served on the Defendant on 12 April 2024;
    b. In breach of the Injunction the Defendant was present in Parker Court on the following dates: 13 April 2024, 15 April 2024, 16 April 2024, 25 May 2024.
  4. I adjourned consideration of the penalty for those breaches to today’s date to give Mr Platt a further opportunity to attend and to seek legal representation before dealing with penalty. I issued a warrant of arrest to ensure his attendance.
  5. Mr Platt was served with my order dated 4 July 2024 on 19 July 2024. The deemed date of service was 22 July
  6. According to an attendance note from the Claimant’s solicitors dated 24 July 2024, Mr Platt left a voicemail for them on 20 July 2024, showing that he had received my order by that date. The Claimant’s solicitors spoke to him on 24 July 2024 when he said that he did not think he would attend today’s hearing, giving various reasons, none of which was a good one. The Claimant’s solicitors told him he did need to attend, that he had sufficient time to seek legal advice, and it would be a matter for the Court what penalty to impose. He should therefore attend the hearing to address the Court. Mr Platt said that he did not have financial reasons for not attending.
  7. I find that Mr Platt is aware of today’s hearing and the possibility of the Court proceeding to decide the penalty today in his absence. He has had sufficient opportunity to prepare for today’s hearing. He has had an opportunity to obtain legal representation. He has no good reason for not attending the hearing today and has chosen not to attend. This is the second occasion on which he has chosen not to attend despite being aware that the Court might proceed in his absence.
  8. Having regard to the overriding objective, the deliberate nature of Mr Platt’s non-attendance at this hearing and the hearing on 4 July 2024, and the cost to the Claimant and the Court of a further adjournment, I have decided to proceed to determine the penalty for the breaches of the injunction in Mr Platt’s absence.
  9. Mr Platt was arrested for breaching the Injunction on 15 April 2024, 16 April 2024, 17 April 2024, and 25 May
  10. On 15 and 16 April 2024 he was produced to the Court and remanded on bail. Later on 16 April 2024 he breached the Injunction again and was admitted to hospital for an assessment under s.2 of the Mental Health Act
  11. He was discharged on or about 17 May 2024. According to an email from the consultant psychiatrist on that date, the Injunction had been discussed with him and he was able to understand the order and its consequences.
  12. I have considered the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in Christopher Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631 that the objectives in sentencing for contempt of court are, in this order: (i) ensuring future compliance with the order; (ii) punishment; and (iii) rehabilitation. I have also considered the range of possible orders set out in paragraph 40 of the Court of Appeal’s judgment and the CJC’s guidelines reproduced at paragraph 54 of that judgment.
  13. The matters I consider most relevant to culpability are as follows:
    a. Mr Platt first breached the Injunction on 13 April 2024, the day after it was served upon him.
    b. Mr Platt has repeatedly breached the Injunction despite having been arrested, produced to the Court and remanded on bail to attend future hearings.
    c. Mr Platt has therefore shown repeatedly that he does not intend to comply with the Injunction.
    d. On the other hand there is no evidence that Mr Platt has breached the Injunction since 25 May 2024.
    e. However, in my view, this case falls within Culpability A given the persistence and frequency of Mr Platt’s breaches of the Injunction and the contempt he has shown for the authority of the Court.
  14. The matters most relevant to harm are:
    a. The purpose of the Injunction was in part to protect Mr Platt’s father, who lives at Parker Court, has dementia
    and is vulnerable. It was also to protect other residents of Parker Court, which is a retirement complex for residents aged 55 and over. The youngest resident is 61, the oldest is 87.
    b. The evidence relied on in support of the application for an injunction showed that Mr Platt’s behaviour had already caused them fear and alarm. Allegations included brandishing a knife, threats to kill the neighbours, setting fires and threats of violence to neighbours and his father as well as other anti-social behaviour.
    c. Therefore, although there is no evidence that Mr Platt directly caused harm to any other person on the occasions when he breached the Injunction, his very presence at Parker Court is likely to cause fear and alarm to the residents there and undermines the purpose of the injunction.
    d. The statements of the arresting officers on 13 April 2024, 15 April 2024, and 16 April 2024 show that on those occasions Mr Platt did not comply with instructions from the police and/ or resisted arrest making it difficult for them to arrest him, undermining the enforcement of the Injunction and showing further contempt for the processes of the law.
    e. I consider that these circumstances fall within Harm Category 2.
  15. The starting point for Culpability A, Harm Category 2 is a custodial sentence of 3 months. The range is adjourned consideration to 6 months.
  16. As I have already taken into account the matters set out in paragraph 10 above to decide the Culpability, I shall not take them into account as aggravating factors, to avoid double counting. Mr Platt has given no good reasons for being Parker Court on the occasions of the breaches. His failure to attend the hearings on 4 July 2024 and today without reasonable excuse aggravate his breaches because they show further contempt for the Court process.
  17. However, I bear in mind in mitigation that there is evidence that Mr Platt has experienced mental health
    difficulties, although it appears he was nonetheless able to understand the Injunction and its consequences, he had nowhere else to live at the time of the first 3 breaches (albeit he had no entitlement to live at Parker Court), having been provided with alternative accommodation only after his discharge from hospital, and there is no evidence that he has breached the injunction since 25 May 2024, which suggests that he may now be complying with it.
  18. This the first time that the Court is considering the appropriate penalty for the breaches although there are 4
    separate breaches to consider. I bear in mind the first consideration is securing future compliance with the order.
    If I was considering a single, first breach of the Injunction in isolation I would have adjourned the consideration
    of penalty for a period of time to give Mr Platt the opportunity to demonstrate compliance with the Injunction.
  19. However, I am considering four breaches three of which happened within a week and the fourth shortly after
    his discharge from hospital. I shall impose a penalty for the totality of the breaches. I consider nothing less than
    a custodial penalty is appropriate in this case in view of the number of the breaches of the order, their persistence and the contempt Mr Platt has demonstrated for the Court and its processes. I am satisfied that Mr Platt is unlikely to obey the injunction in future unless it is brought home to him that disobedience will result in a custodial penalty.
  20. Bearing in mind the limited mitigation that I am able to take into account in Mr Platt’s absence, the appropriaten penalty in totality is a sentence of 4 months imprisonment. I am satisfied that that penalty is a proportionate one in total. However, as the first purpose of sentencing for contempt of court is to secure future compliance with the order, this is the first time that the Court is imposing a penalty for breaches of the Order notwithstanding that 4 such breaches have been found, and there is no evidence of any breach since 25 May 2024, I will suspend the penalty until the Injunction expires at 4 pm on 25 March 2026 to give Mr Platt a further opportunity to show that he will comply with the Injunction. If he breaches the Injunction in future, that penalty will be activated in addition to any penalty that the Court decides to impose for any future breach that is found.
  21. My order is therefore that Mr Platt shall be committed to prison for a period of 4 months, suspended until 4pm on 25 March 2026 on condition that he complies with the injunction order made by DDJ Livesley on 26 March 2024.
  22. Mr Platt has the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal without needing permission. Any such appeal must be lodged with the Court of Appeal by 3 September 2024.