Committal for Contempt of Court: Tamworth Borough Council -v- Dean Chambers
Case No: L00NU242
In the County Court at Warwick
(sitting at Warwick Crown Court)
29 August 2024
Before:
Her Honour Judge Saira Singh
Between:
Tamworth Borough Council
-v-
Dean Chambers
Judgment
1. JUDGE SINGH: I am dealing with an application for contempt of court brought by Tamworth Borough Council against Mr Dean Chambers alleging various breaches of an Anti-Social Behaviour Injunction made on 17 May 2024 as amended on 13 June 2024.
2. The claimant has been represented today by Ms Anbahan of counsel. I am grateful to her for her submissions. Mr Chambers has represented himself. There have been several hearings before today. At the last hearing on 23 August 2024, which Mr Chambers attended by video link, Mr Recorder Sheehan KC advised him of his rights, including that he was entitled to seek legal representation. Mr Chambers indicated at that time that he wanted to do so. The matter was adjourned to today. Mr Chambers has been brought before the court again today and has attended. He was again advised of his right to silence, right against self‑incrimination and right to legal representation. He indicated that he was aware of his right to legal representation but said that he wished to proceed today and that he wished to admit the outstanding breaches that are alleged against him.
3. The claimant alleges breaches of an injunction granted under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 against Mr Chambers without notice on 17 May 2024 which was then amended and made final on 13 June 2024. The terms of that injunction were that Mr Chambers was forbidden from visiting or staying at 32 Sorrel, Amington, Tamworth, Staffordshire; entering the street Sorrel; using abusive and threatening language towards any person who resides in, or any other person, whether residing, visiting or otherwise engaged in lawful activity in the locality of Sorrel and throughout the Borough of Tamworth; using violence towards or threatening to use violence towards Tracy Nash or any person in the locality of Staffordshire; contacting either directly or indirectly or visiting Ms Tracy Nash; or engaging or threatening to engage in conduct which causes or is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person who resides in, or any other person, whether residing, visiting or otherwise engaged in lawful activity, in the locality of Sorrel and throughout the Borough of Tamworth. That injunction remains in force until 17 May 2025. A power of arrest was attached to that order.
4. On 29 July 2024, the claimant made an application for contempt. That followed a hearing before District Judge Bowen on 24 July and it was alleged that Mr Chambers had breached the injunction. Mr Chambers at that hearing was remanded in custody and the matter was adjourned until 31 July with the claimant being ordered to file and serve a contempt application with supporting evidence. That is the application dated 29 July 2024. The application contains eight allegations of breach and of those, allegation 4 was withdrawn in advance of this hearing; allegation 2 was withdrawn at this hearing today; and allegation 6 was dealt with by DCJ Gregory at a hearing on 14 August 2024. My understanding is that DCJ Gregory was unable to deal with the other breaches because he did not have details of them before him. That is my understanding.
5. In the meantime, there was also a hearing in the Magistrates’ Court. There were criminal proceedings in relation to the incident relied on for allegation 3 and I have heard today that Mr Chambers was given a compensation order of £50, albeit that Mr Chambers’ understanding was that he was fined for that incident.
6. In relation to allegations 7 and 8, those incidents are going to be the subject of a hearing before the Magistrates on 30 September 2024. In any event, Mr Chambers has today admitted allegations 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8 in the application dated 29 July 2024.
7. At the hearing on 14 August 2024, DCJ Gregory sentenced Mr Chambers to a custodial sentence of one day for breach number 6 and Mr Chambers was released from custody due to the time that he had already served. On 18 August 2024, he was arrested again and a further contempt application was made by the claimant on 19 August, relying on three allegations of breach on 18 August, consisting of the use of abusive language towards his ex‑partner’s son, towards an unnamed individual and towards police officers. Mr Chambers has admitted those breaches and I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence before the court and on the basis of those admissions to the required criminal standard of proof, that is beyond reasonable doubt, that the claimant has proved those breaches.
8. Coming on to sentences, I have referred to the guidelines in the Court of Appeal decision in Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631. The objective of sentencing is to secure future compliance with an order, to punish the offender, to secure rehabilitation of the offender and the powers that are available to the court are as follows: an immediate custodial sentence, a suspended custodial sentence with conditions attached, the adjourned consideration of the appropriate sentence, a fine or no order at all.
9. In determining the appropriate sentence, the court has to consider culpability and harm. This is a case, given the nature of the breaches which, at their highest, involve assault on police officers on more than one occasion, in my judgment fall into the high culpability bracket which is for very serious or persistent serious breaches. As I have said, this happened on more than one occasion. In relation to harm, the breaches include threats against an individual, Ms Nash, who was somebody who was meant to be protected by the injunction, multiple assaults on police officers and abusive language before members of the public. In my judgment, that falls into the category 1 level of harm, which is a breach which causes very serious harm or distress.
10. If I then consider the grid in Lovett v Wigan, that provides a starting point for sentencing of 6 months, with a category range of 8 weeks to 18 months. I should say that this is a case in which I am satisfied that the custody threshold has been crossed. These are serious breaches which have been persistent and prolonged, involving threats and assaults and it seems to me, as I have said, that the custody threshold is therefore crossed. The starting point for this category is 6 months.
11. There are a number of aggravating factors that apply in this case. There has been a history of disobedience of court orders. There was a breach of the interim injunction that was made on 17 May. There have been breaches of the final injunction granted on 13 June. Immediately or shortly after the hearing at which DCJ Gregory considered and sentenced Mr Chambers for allegation 6, there were three further breaches on 18 August. So there have been multiple and repeated breaches of the orders and a history of disobedience, even very shortly after an order has been made.
12. I also take into account, as I have already said, that there were threats made against Ms Nash, who the injunction was made to protect and there was also a breach of bail conditions that had been set in the criminal proceedings in that, as I found in relation to breach 5, Mr Chambers was released from custody and then returned to 32 Sorrel, both in breach of bail conditions and also in breach of the injunction.
13. There are in total eight breaches for which I am sentencing. Those on 18 August are at the lower end of the seriousness scale, in that they involve abusive language, but the earlier breaches involve assaults on police officers and I am satisfied that even one of those breaches would fall at the top end of the sentencing range, so that is 18 months.
14. Insofar as breach three has been dealt with by the Magistrates, I do take into account that those were criminal proceedings, whereas the present proceedings relate to the breach of a court order. The Magistrates made a compensation order, which was a matter for them, but I take into account that breach number 3 involved the assault of four police officers. Those are all aggravating factors.
15. In mitigation, there has been an early admission. Although there have been several hearings before this, I am satisfied that Mr Chambers has admitted these breaches at a fairly early stage or when the opportunity has arisen and in those circumstances there should be a reduction of the sentence. When asked if there was anything else that he wished to add or tell me for me to take into account when giving my sentence, Mr Chambers said he had nothing else to say. He had nothing to say in his defence and that is something I take into account. He has not sought to justify or make excuses for his behaviour.
16. The appropriate sentence for breaches 1 and 5 is 2 months. In relation to breaches 3, 7 and 8, which involve assaults on police officers, the degree of culpability and harm places them at the top of the scale and the appropriate sentence is 18 months. I consider the totality principal. Each sentence will run concurrently. I also reduce the custodial sentence by 6 months to take into account the early admissions. Then that needs to be further reduced to consider the time that has been spent on remand. I am told that Mr Chambers has spent 11 days on remand which equates to a 22 day sentence. So the sentence is 12 months less 22 days.
17. Given the number of breaches, the persistent nature of them and also the history of breach of the order, even just after a hearing or a sentence has been passed, it seems to me that this is not a case where a suspended sentence would be appropriate. In those circumstances I am going to make an immediate custodial sentence.
18. The claimant has made an application for its costs, limited to counsel’s fees for the hearings on 20 and 23 August and today. I am making an order for Mr Chambers to pay the claimant’s costs in the sum of £2,700.
19. The court has made an immediate order of committal. Mr Chambers has a right of appeal without the need to seek permission. Any appeal lies to the Court of Appeal and must be filed within 21 days of today. A transcript of this judgment will be produced at public expense and published on the Judiciary website.