Committal for contempt of court: South Cambridgeshire District Council -v- Kayleigh Harrison and Neville King
Case number: K00PE964
In the Country Court at Peterborough
1 October 2024
Before:
HHJ Moloney KC
sitting in retirement
-v-
(1) Kayleigh Harrison
(2) Neville King
JUDGMENT ON APPLICATION FOR COMMITTAL
OF NEVILLE KING FOR BREACH OF INJUNCTION
(1) The 1st Defendant, Kayleigh Harrison, is the tenant of the Claimant local authority’s property at 45 Victory Way, Cottenham, Cambridge. The 2nd Defendant, Neville King, is her domestic partner. No. 45 is a semi-detached house; the other half, No. 47, is occupied by Mr and Mrs Hawkes. Both families have young children.
2. Regrettably a dispute arose between the two families, which culminated in the Council seeking an injunction in respect of anti-social behaviour on the Defendants’ part. An injunction was granted by a District Judge on 14 August 2023 and varied on 14 September 2023. Its relevant provisions so far as Mr King is concerned were as follows:
a. He was not to be present at the property (No. 45) between the hours of 8pm and 8am; and/or
b. He was not to cause harassment, alarm or distress to the occupants of No. 47.
3. On 25 January 2024 the Council issued a committal application against Mr King only. The original application alleged a total of five breaches on three occasions:
14.12.23 Breach of both (a) and (b) above;
4.1.24 Breach of (a) only;
19.1.24 Breach of both (a) and (b).
To these has been added a subsequent sixth incident (breach of (a) only on 2.9.24), which is being dealt with summarily today under the provisions of CPR 65.47.
4. In an initial ruling at the start of the hearing, I dealt with the question of Mr King’s lacking legal representation, and held that (for the reasons then stated) he had been given every opportunity to obtain representation and that there was no reason to adjourn this hearing further.
5. I heard the oral evidence of Mr Radford, the Council’s enforcement officer, and of the neighbour Mrs Hawkes, and received the written evidence of the arresting officer in respect of the 2.9.24 incident. I also listened to contemporary audio recordings of the original three incidents. Mr King was advised of his right to give evidence if he wished, but chose not to do so.
6. I remind myself that committal proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Specifically, the burden of proof is on the applicant, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, and the defendant is not obliged to give evidence in his own defence though he may do so if he so chooses.
7. It is convenient to deal separately with the alleged breaches of (a), as to which the sole question is whether the Council has proved Mr King’s presence at the property within the prohibited hours, and of (b) in which the question is whether his conduct actually caused harassment, alarm or distress to the occupants of No. 47.
8. The evidence of his presence is clear beyond reasonable doubt in each case:
a. On 14.12.23 the audio recording clearly shows his voice, and both Ms Harrison and a child call the speaker “Neville”.
b. On 4.1.24 his own voice is not clearly heard but Ms Harrison is recorded as speaking to a person called “Neville”.
c. On 19.1.24 his voice is very plainly heard over a protracted period (and the police found him on the premises).
d. On 2.9.24 the police officer actually caught him in the garden (which I am satisfied so that I am sure is part of the property of No. 45 for the purposes of the injunction).
9. As to timing (is it clear the incidents took place during the prohibited hours?), in the first three cases this is principally derived from the fact that the audio recordings were made by a CCTV system which also recorded the relevant times:
– on 14.12.23, between 7 and 8 am;
– on 4.1.24, between 5 and 6 am;
– on 19.1.24, around midnight.
Mr King rightly points out that such clocks may be inaccurate or indeed manipulated. However, unless manipulated they are unlikely to be more than an hour out, and the 4.1.24 recording actually includes Ms Harrison saying “Go away Neville, it’s 5 in the morning man”, which corroborates the timing for that incident, and thus also indicates that the clock is likely to have been accurate for the other two temporally adjacent incidents. In the absence of any positive case by Mr King whether from his own evidence or via cross-examination, I am satisfied so that I am sure that these timings are accurate. Similarly, in respect of the 2.9.24 incident the officer, PC Davis, records Mr King being arrested in the garden of No. 45 at 2303 hours. No criticism has been made of this evidence and I am satisfied so that I am sure of its accuracy.
10. As to the allegations of breach of provision (b), these depend on a combination of the content of the audio evidence and the testimony of Mrs Hawkes as to the effect of the alleged conduct upon her and her husband.
11. In respect of the 14.12.23 incident, a transcript of which is in the Court bundle, and a recording of which was played in Court, the conduct of Mr King was simply shocking. He uses continuous obscene language in the presence of Ms Harrison and the children. And more seriously, his language is hostile and aggressive towards her, and causes the children to cry out in distress. The neighbours Mr and Mrs Hawkes, who themselves had a very young baby, could plainly hear all this from their next-door bedroom. I am satisfied so that I am sure that the effect upon them was deeply distressing and alarming, even though it was not actually directed at them so as also to constitute harassment of them.
12. The 19.1.24 incident is rather different. Although there is equally persistent obscene language from Mr King, directed in part against Ms Harrison and the children, the bulk of the recorded incident follows the arrival of the police, who had been called by the neighbours. Not surprisingly in the circumstances, this stimulated Mr King to further anger, against the police as well as Ms Harrison. Though the neighbours heard this and cannot have enjoyed it, the fact that the police were present is likely to have removed the particular alarm and distress caused by fear that Mr King might actually use violence towards Ms Harrison or the children. For this reason, I am left in doubt as to whether this incident can properly be characterised as a breach of provision (b) as well as (a), and I therefore find that the Council has not proved that allegation of breach to the required standard. The other 5 allegations of breach are however proved, as stated above.
[There followed a short adjournment after which the Council’s representative addressed the Court on the applicable sentencing principles and Mr King addressed the Court in mitigation. Regrettably it has transpired that the Court’s recording equipment had malfunctioned throughout the hearing. Though the above ruling, paras 1 to 12, is based on the Judge’s longhand speaking notes and he is confident of its fullness and accuracy, no such notes of his sentencing remarks have been found. What follows is a brief summary based on the Order itself, written that day or the next, and on the Judge’s best recollection of those remarks.]
13. Mr King, in sentencing you for the 5 breaches of injunction that I have found proved against you, I bear in mind the guidance recently given by the Court of Appeal in the case of Lovett v. Wigan [2022] EWCA Civ 1631. I bear in mind particularly that:
a. the maximum sentence for such a breach is 2 years’ imprisonment, of which half is to be served;
b. the principal objective of the Court in sentencing for breach of an order is to ensure future compliance with the Order;
c. custody is to be reserved for the most serious breaches.
14. In this case I note that you have breached the Court’s order on four separate occasions. On the third such occasion you were found on the premises at night by the police. Yet despite that, and despite the fact that committal proceedings were active against you, only last month you were there again at night and were once more found by the police. This is clear proof of a complete disregard for the Court’s order. I also bear in mind that although your shocking conduct was not directed against your neighbours personally, it was equally if not more alarming and distressing for them by reason of it being directed against your own vulnerable partner and the children.
15. It appears to me that only the immediate prospect of custody in the event of further breaches is likely to motivate you to obey the orders of the Court. I therefore sentence you to a period of 10 weeks’ custody in respect of each of the 5 breaches for which you have been found liable, those terms to be concurrent not consecutive. They are suspended for a period of 12 months, unless during that period you commit a further breach of the injunction which is later proved against you or admitted by you. If you do not commit such a breach, the suspended sentences will then cease to have effect. But if you do commit such a further breach, then the Judge dealing with that case is highly likely to order the suspended sentences to take effect, and in addition to impose a further sentence appropriate to the nature of the further breach.
16. Finally, you are ordered to pay the Council’s legal costs of the committal proceedings, summarily assessed at £2,970.00.
HHJ MOLONEY KC 1 OCTOBER 2024
(Note prepared 9 January 2025)