Committal for Contempt of Court: Nottingham City Council -v- Lisa Sankauskas

County CourtCommittal for Contempt of Court

Case No. M00NG745

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT NOTTINGHAM

25 February 2026

Before:

DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE MAUGHAN-WILLIAMS

Between:

Nottingham City Council

-v-

Lisa Sankauskas

Judgment

DDJ MAUGHAN-WILLIAMS:

  1. I am delivering this judgment on an ex tempore basis following the contempt hearing that has been listed today on 25 February 2026.  This is the hearing of a contempt application dated 12 December 2025 bought by Nottingham City Council who has been represented by Ms Phillips of counsel.  The defendant has failed to attend today’s hearing and is not represented. I am satisfied that the defendant is well aware of this hearing today and the application that is being made and I have seen a certificate of service in relation to that. 
  2. The application has been brought following a hearing which took place on 5 December 2025 before me following the defendant’s arrest for alleged breach of an injunction that was made by Deputy District Judge Sharkey on 13 June 2025 and a final injunction was made by me on 4 July 2025.  That injunction remains in force until 13 June of this year. 
  3. The injunction provided that the defendant was forbidden from (a) assaulting or threatening Thomas Barrett of 23 Hutchinson Green, St Anne’s, Nottingham NG3 1NS and Stephen Taylor of 206 Newark Crescent, Sneinton, Nottingham NG2 4NY or any person supporting or providing care for either of those individuals, (b) from verbally abusing or intimidating either of those individuals or any person supporting or providing care for them, (c) from contacting either of those individuals or any person supporting or providing care for them by any means whatsoever, (d) from verbally or abusing or intimidating any person employed by or acting on behalf of the claimant or Nottingham City Council Housing Services, (e) from being on or, remaining upon, entering or loitering at 23 Hutchinson Green, St Anne’s, Nottingham NG3 1NS or 206 Newark Crescent, Sneinton, Nottingham NG2 4NY and for the sake of completeness, (f) withdrawing any funds or removing or taking possession or items owned and/or controlled by Thomas Barrett or Stephen Taylor by any means whatsoever, irrespective of the presence of those said individuals and there was a power of arrest attached to that injunction.  
  4. The application is made because it is the claimant’s case that the defendant has breached 1(e) of that injunction order by being on or remaining upon entering or loitering at 23 Hutchinson Green which is the property of Thomas Barrett. 
  5. The application is supported by an affidavit from Ms Deborah Brooks who is employed by the claimant and exhibited to Ms Brooks’ statement are statements from PCSO Michelle Kent dated 27 November 2025, PC Annalise Howell dated 27 November 2025, PC Daisy Salford dated 4 December 2025 and PC Bethan Davies dated 8 December 2025. 
  6. The statements have been sworn by Ms Brooks and PSCO Kent and PC Howell.  PC Salford and PC Davies’ statement are adduced as hearsay.  It is really the evidence of PSCO Michelle Kent and PC Annalise Howell which is the most compelling in respect of the alleged breaches.  What is said is that on 17 November 2025, PC Howell reviewed footage with PSCO Kent of 23 Hutchinson Green for the purpose of ensuring that Mr Barrett was protected, tracking his safety and the safety of his property.  On that footage both Officers identified who they believed to be the defendant on 21 October 2025 entering Mr Barrett’s property at about 16.16 hours and leaving at 18.42 hours that same evening.  A copy of the CCTV footage has been shown to me and I have asked questions of PC Howell in particular in respect of what was viewed on the footage on 21 October.  PC Howell told me that she was sure that it was the defendant who was seen on the footage; that the defendant had the same walk, same clothing, same hairstyle as the individual seen on the footage and that she knew the defendant very well and had previously seen her in very similar outfits and that a handbag that she was wearing on this day was the same as a handbag that she had seen her using after this incident.  She told me she was a hundred per cent sure that it was the defendant and that the property that could be seen in the footage was at 23 Hutchinson Green. 
  7. On 18 November 2025 PSCO Kent reviewed CCTV footage from the same property and identified the defendant at the property on 30 October 2025 at 18.34 hours.  I have seen CCTV footage of that date and PCSO Kent told me that she had no doubt in her mind that it was the defendant in the footage, the defendant is someone she knows very well with whom she has had many interactions and the individual shown in the footage is dressed in the way that the defendant dresses and that she was sure it was the defendant who could be seen. 
  8. The specific breaches are said to have taken place on 21 October 2025 and 30 October 2025.  The statements of PC Salford and PC Davies are adduced.  PC Salford arrested the defendant on 4 December 2025 for a suspected breach of the injunction and PC Davies brought the defendant to court on 5 December 2025.  Whilst waiting outside of court, PC Davies states that the defendant said, “Do people go to prison for breaching a couple of times”, and made a contemporaneous note in the notebook which can be seen at page 123 of the bundle. The notebook makes a note in exactly the same terms as that which I have referred.  That is the evidence that is adduced in support of the breaches.
  9. Having viewed the CCTV footage, it is right to say that the face of the individual who can be seen attending the property, who I am satisfied is the same individual on both 21 October and 30 October, is not entirely clear, but there are several distinctive features which I consider add credence to what is said by the claimant’s witnesses as to their ability to identify the defendant.  The first is the outfits that are worn by the individual on each occasion which are very similar and consistent with a winter style short jacket, with some light jogging bottoms. The hairstyle of the individual is very similar. Their gait when they approach the property is very similar and distinctive.  I am satisfied that there was sufficient material for the claimant’s witnesses to properly identify that individual as the defendant and I am satisfied by their evidence that that is the defendant who can be seen in the footage.  I do not consider that I can draw any inference from what is stated by PC Davies in her statement.  The reference to breaching a couple of times could be in relation to any of the breaches which the evidence demonstrates the defendant has already committed.  I note from the history in Ms Brooks’ statement that the defendant was found to have breached the injunction on a number of previous occasions in July and September of last year and without it being entirely clear which breaches the defendant was referring to, I cannot draw any inferences from her remark. 
  10. I am satisfied on the evidence that I have reviewed that the defendant did breach paragraph 1(e) of the injunction on 21 October 2025 and 30 October 2025.  It is clear from the footage that the individual who can be seen, who I am satisfied is the defendant, on 30 October approaches the property very quickly then leaves and loiters outside of the gate and then reapproaches the property shortly thereafter.  That is clearly in breach of paragraph 1(e) of the injunction which forbids the defendant from being on, remaining on or upon entering or loitering at 23 Hutchinson Green.    On 21 October, the defendant was at the property for a much longer period of time, in fact entering the property and leaving the property some 30 minutes or so later which again is in clear breach of paragraph 1(e) of the injunction. 
  11. I, therefore, find that the breaches are proved and I am satisfied so that I am sure, beyond doubt which is the standard of proof that needs to be met, that those breaches have been proved.