Committal for Contempt of Court: Southend on Sea City Council -v- Miss Honor Maclean (fka Sammy Jo Machin)

County CourtCommittal for Contempt of Court

Claim number: K00SS453

In the County Court at Southend

21 October 2024

Before:

His Honour Judge Duddridge

Between:

Southend on Sea City Council

-v-

Miss Honor Maclean (fka Sammy Jo Machin)

Judgment

Before His Honour Judge Duddridge sitting at the County Court at Southend, The Court House, 80 Victoria Avenue, Southend-on-sea, Essex, SS2 6EU.

UPON the Claimant’s application by form N600 dated 1 July 2024 to commit the Defendant for contempt of court

AND UPON hearing Counsel for the Claimant and the Defendant not attending

AND UPON the Court making the findings of contempt of court set out in the Schedule below

IT IS ORDERED FOR THE REASONS SET OUT BELOW THAT

  1. The hearing of the Claimant’s application shall proceed in the Defendant’s absence.
  2. Consideration of the penalty for contempt of court is adjourned to [date to be advised after 1 June 2025] time estimate 30 minutes.
  3. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant’s costs on the indemnity basis to be the subject of a detailed assessment if not agreed.
  4. The Defendant has the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal without requiring permission. The Defendant must lodge any appellant’s notice with the Court of Appeal by not later than 4pm on 8 November 2024.
  5. A copy of this Order will be published on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales.

Schedule

The Defendant breached the antisocial behaviour injunction granted by District Judge Mills on 8 August 2023 as follows:

  1. On 14 November 2023 the Defendant was shouting and swearing outsider her property in an aggressive manner in breach of paragraph 2 a. or b. of the injunction.
  2. On 10 January 2024 at 11.15pm the Defendant was shouting and aggressively talking inside her property and 45 minutes later there was further shouting inside her property in breach of paragraph 2 a. or b. of the injunction.
  3. On 1 March 2024 at 2.45 am there were loud voices coming from the Defendant’s property which woke the Defendant’s neighbours in breach of paragraph 2 a. or b. of the injunction.

Reasons

  1. On 8 August 2023 District Judge Mills made an anti-social behaviour injunction against the Defendant Miss Honor MacLean (aka Sammy Jo Machin). The Injunction was expressed to last until 8 August 2024. On 28 June 2024, Deputy District Judge Smith extended the injunction until 28 June 2025.
  2. Paragraph 2 of the injunction prohibited the Defendant from, amongst other things, the following conduct:
    a. Engaging in any conduct which is capable of causing or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person or persons in the locality of the Property, including staff, contractors, agents or employees of the Claimant or residents of Caulfield Road.
    b. Engaging in any conduct which is capable of causing or likely to cause nuisance or annoyance to any staff, contractors, agents and/ or employees of the Claimant or residents of Caulfield Road, including but not limited to slamming doors, making threatening remarks, and ringing residents’ doorbells and making unnecessary demands.
  3. The affidavit of Bernard James Hammond dated 14 August 2023 shows that the injunction was personally served on the Defendant on that date. I am therefore satisfied that the Defendant was personally served with the injunction.
  4. The Form N600 sets out the following allegations of breaches of the injunction:
    a. On the 14th November 2023 the Defendant was shouting and swearing inside her property in an aggressive manner.
    b. On the 15th December 2023 the Defendant made threats against a neighbour.
    c. On the 10th January 2024 at 11.15 pm the Defendant was shouting and aggressively talking inside her property. 45 minutes after this incident there was further shouting.
    d. On 1st March 2024 at 2.45 am there were loud voices coming from the Defendant’s property that woke the Defendant’s neighbours.
  5. A certificate of service signed by one A. Murith, a security officer (the first name is not clear on the certificate) states that, amongst other documents, the Form N600, evidence relied on by the Clamant and notice of hearing date were delivered to or left at 20.20 on 9 August 2024 but does not expressly state who it was delivered to or left with. Louise Scaife gave oral evidence that she had viewed body worn footage from the camera worn by A. Murith which showed the security officer handing an envelope containing documents to the Defendant on 9 August 2024.
  6. The N600 contained a statement of the Defendant’s rights at page 3, including her right to a reasonable opportunity to obtain legal representation and to apply for legal aid which may be available without a means test, and to a reasonable time to prepare for the hearing.
  7. The N600 also contained a statement informing the Defendant that the Court might proceed in her absence if she failed to attend the hearing and could punish her by a fine, imprisonment, confiscation of assets or other punishment permitted by the law if the Court was satisfied that she had committed a contempt.
  8. The Defendant did not attend the hearing today.
  9. I decided to proceed in the Defendant’s evidence for the following reasons:
    a. I am satisfied by the certificate of service and the evidence of Ms Scaife referred to above that the Defendant was personally served with the N600, evidence in support of the application and the notice of today’s hearing.
    b. The N600 advised the Defendant of her right to a reasonable opportunity to prepare the case and to obtain legal advice. As it was served on her on 9 August 2024, she has had over two months to do so if she wished.
    c. The N600 also advised the Defendant that, if she did not attend, the Court could proceed in her absence.
    d. There is no explanation for the Defendant’s non-attendance. She has not contacted the Court to say she could not attend or seeking an adjournment.
    e. I have no confidence that the Defendant will attend any adjourned hearing.
    f. An adjournment will cause increased costs for the Claimant and inconvenience for Mrs Ogburn who has attended to give evidence.
  10. The Court File contains a proportionality assessment dated 12 July 2023 undertaken by the Claimant before applying for the injunction. This shows that the Defendant has a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia but was considered to have capacity and to understand the implications of her actions. There is no more up to date evidence, but there is no evidence to suggest that her condition is any different today or that she lacks either litigation capacity or capacity to comply with the injunction.
  11. I have read the affidavits and documents annexed to the form N600. I heard oral evidence on oath or affirmation from Louise Scaife and Sharon Ogburn. I viewed a video recording of the incident on 1 March 2024.
  12. On the basis of that evidence, I am satisfied to the criminal standard of proof (i.e. so that I am sure) that:
    a. On 14 November 2023 the Defendant was shouting and swearing outside her property in an aggressive manner. This was likely to cause alarm, distress, nuisance or annoyance to her neighbours, in breach of paragraph 2 a. or b. of the injunction.
    b. On 10 January 2024 at 11.15pm the Defendant was shouting and aggressively talking inside her property and 45 minutes later there was further shouting inside her property. This was likely to cause alarm, distress, nuisance or annoyance to her neighbours, in breach of paragraph 2 a. or b. of the injunction.
    c. On 1 March 2024 at 2.45 am there were loud voices coming from the Defendant’s property one of which woke the Defendant’s neighbours. This was likely to cause alarm, distress, nuisance or annoyance to her neighbours, in breach of paragraph 2 a. or b. of the injunction.
  13. I am not satisfied that it has been proved to the criminal standard that the Defendant made threats against a neighbour on 15 December 2023. I believe Mrs Ogburn’s evidence about what she heard the Defendant say, but the alleged threat was not directed at the neighbour in question and is ambiguous, in that it appears that the Defendant might merely have been expressing an intention to report the neighbour to the police or bring proceedings against her. I doubt that fell within the prohibitions in the injunction. I also doubt that it was capable of causing or likely to cause harassment, alarm, distress, nuisance or annoyance to Mrs Ogburn or the other neighbour who heard it. Although it is arguable that it might have done so on the balance of probabilities, I have to be satisfied to the criminal standard. I therefore give the Defendant the benefit of the doubt.
  14. I have considered the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631 and the CJC guidelines incorporated at paragraph 54 of the judgment in that case.
  15. The three aims of imposing a penalty for contempt are, in this order: (a) securing future compliance with the order; (b) punishment; and (c) rehabilitation. I bear in mind therefore that securing future compliance with the order should be the first objective I consider.
  16. The following factors are relevant to the Defendant’s culpability: the first breach I have found occurred on 14 November 2023, several months after the injunction was granted. I assess culpability on the basis that there were several months of compliance before that breach. Although I have found three breaches proved, they were isolated breaches over several months, as opposed to frequent, persistent breaches of the injunction. Individually, I would assess culpability as falling within C; their cumulative effect means that the third breach might fall into the upper end of that category or the lower end of category B.
  17. So far as harm is concerned, I bear in mind the distressing effect of the Defendant’s behaviour on Mr and Mrs Ogburn, who are likely to be particularly sensitive to her behaviour having regard to the history of much more serious anti-social and criminal behaviour that preceded the injunction. They are entitled to enjoy their home in peace without being disturbed by her conduct. However, the breaches are very much at the lower level of antisocial behaviour. I assess them as being in harm category 3.
  18. Culpability C and harm category 3 gives a starting point of adjourned consideration and a range of no order or a fine to two weeks custody for each breach. If the third breach falls within Culpability B, the starting point is adjourned consideration and the range is adjourned consideration to 1 month custody.
  19. The Defendant’s failure to attend without explanation is an aggravating factor as it suggests further contempt or disregard for the Court but I give that limited weight.
  20. Mitigating factors include that the Defendant has a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, which might be a factor in some of her behaviour, albeit the limited evidence suggests she has sufficient capacity to understand and comply with the order. Also, the Claimant may bring possession proceedings on mandatory grounds as result of the breaches I have found proved. If so, the Defendant will lose her home as a consequence of her behaviour.
  21. If there had only been one or two breaches, I would have been inclined to make no order. However, there have been three breaches, I am mindful of the need to secure compliance with the order, and further conduct has been alleged in the second affidavit of Mrs Ogburn (although I make clear that I have made no findings about that alleged conduct). The appropriate order in the circumstances is to adjourn consideration of penalty to a date in June 2025 to give the Defendant the opportunity to demonstrate compliance with the injunction. If there are further breaches, that is likely to be relevant when considering the penalty for the breaches I have already found proved. It is also of some relevance that, if the Claimant does serve possession proceedings, that might provoke an adverse reaction from the Defendant. Adjourning the question of penalty is intended to reinforce the need for compliance with the order in that context as well.
  22. The Defendant has the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal without needing permission to appeal.