Committal for Contempt of Court: Wigan Borough Council -v- Andrew Brown
Claim No: K00WN506
In the County Court at Wigan
6 June 2024
Before:
District Judge Rachel Syed
Between:
Wigan Borough Council
-v-
Mr Andrew Brown
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
- This is the matter of Wigan Borough Council [“WBC”] v Defendant, Mr Andrew Brown in case number K00WN506, relating to Contempt proceedings for an alleged breach of a Final Anti-Social Behaviour Order Injunction.
Background to these proceedings
- On the 27th July 2023, DDJ Mulrooney made a without notice Anti-Social Behaviour Order Injunction which contained a power of arrest. Upon breach of this order the matter was brought back for committal proceedings before District Judge Powell on 19 January 2024. During this hearing, the Defendant Mr Brown, admitted 7 breaches of the Anti-Social Behaviour Order and District Judge Powell ordered a suspended 3-month imprisonment sentence for each breach to be served concurrently so that he would serve no more than 3 months in totality. The Final Injunction Order was dated 19 January 2024 and expires on 19th January 2025.
Schedule of allegations - The allegations concern 3 alleged breaches of District Judge Powell’s Order dated 19 January 2024 which all occurred on 26 January 2024, some 7 days after the last set of committal proceedings took place before District Judge Powell.
- The allegations are that
i. On the 26th January 2024 at approximately 15:00pm, you [Mr Brown, the Defendant] shouted “asylum seeker….you’re going and come out and fight for it”. The Defendant made offensive gestures towards Mr Weissam Alkabboli.
ii. On the 26th January 2024 at approximately 15:11pm, you [Mr Brown, the Defendant] shouted “They didn’t do fuck all in court…little dick head”.
iii. On the 26th January 2024 at approximately 15:13pm, you [Mr Brown, the Defendant] shouted “Libyan Cunt” at Mr Weissam Alkabboli.
Admissions
- To Mr Brown’s credit, he stands before me today, fully accepting and admitting the schedule of allegations [3 breaches] under consideration. This is reflected in his signed witness statement dated 31 May 2024 and replies to the schedule of allegations.
- I am asked by Miss Peden, the Defendant’s legal representative, to reduce any sentencing penalty to reflect his early admission and to take into account that as a consequence of this early admission, Mr Weissam Alkabboli has not had to endure the pain and distress of giving live evidence today. I am also asked to attach greater weight to the mitigating features of Mr Brown’s Depressive Disorder and Alcoholism for which I am told is the underlying cause for his behaviour. I am informed that he is undertaking a period of engagement with those authorities which can support and assist him moving forward.
Legal Submissions - I have heard from Miss Short, Counsel who attends on behalf of WBC, but whose role is limited and from Miss Peden, the Defendant’s Counsel. I have found both their submissions helpful.
Bundle - In order to prepare my ex tempore judgement, I have carefully considered the Committal bundle which contains:
a. WBC Committal application, Schedule of Allegations, Claimants evidence of Mr Weissam Alkabboli dated 1 February 2024
b. Reviewing the video footage
c. Psychiatric report of Dr Rojo dated 16 November 2023
d. Statement of Andrew Brown dated 31 May 2024
e. The Final Injunction Order of District Judge Powell dated 19 January 2024, Maps and her judgement dated 23 January 2024
Common ground
- Mr Brown fully accepts the schedule of allegations, so the factual circumstance of this case is not disputed.
- I also accept the legal submissions advanced on the Defendant’s behalf which demonstrates Mr Brown’s own self report in regard to behaviour, insight and contrition.
Appeal - Before turning to my sentence, the Defendant is reminded that pursuant to section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act the relevant court of appeal in this case is either a Circuit Judge or Court of Appeal but the usual route would be through a Circuit Judge. For the avoidance of doubt, permission is not required for an appeal in this instance.
The law and fundamental principles - I turn now to the relevant law I must consider when imposing any sentence and the reasons for doing so.
- Both Advocates have drawn my attention to the helpful guidance provided in the joint appeal of Lovett v WBC and Smith and Network. I have applied this guidance when preparing my judgement and sentence.
- It is accepted, that the role/objective of the civil courts in these types of contempt cases is to ensure future compliance with orders. Part one of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 makes it clear that the specific objectives in civil contempt cases are to
a. Ensure future compliance with injunction orders
b. Punishment
c. Rehabilitation
- Both advocates have properly brought to my attention that I must firstly assess the seriousness of the breaches, by having considered Culpability and Level of Harm.
- I have also considered the CJC table and I am asked by Miss Short to assess Culpability as a Category A and Level of Harm as Category 1. Miss Peden, unsurprisingly invites me to consider Culpability as Category B and Level of Harm as a Category 2.
Culpability - I reject Miss Peden’s submissions on the basis that:
a. These breaches occurred just 7 days after the last set of committal proceedings, which demonstrates a cavalier and blatant disregard for District Judge Powell’s order dated 19 January 2024.
b. I am satisfied that the breaches are indeed persistent, this being the second set of committal proceedings arising from Anti-Social Behaviour which occurred very quickly after the previous order. The nature of the breaches in my view are aggravated by the fact they are racially motivated and involve serious threats of violence.
c. I therefore assess Culpability as a Category A which has a starting point of 6 months, with a category range of 8 weeks to 18 months.
Level of Harm
- I turn now to Level of Harm.
- Miss Short proposes Level of Harm should be assessed as Category 1. Miss Peden, unsurprisingly invites me to consider Level of Harm as a Category 2.
- I reject Miss Peden’s submissions on the basis that:
a. These are particularly nasty, aggressive, and racially motivated threats of violence of which the consequences of Mr Brown’s actions are detailed in Mr Weissam Alkabboli witness statement, dated 1 February 2024 at paragraphs 12 to 17. He informs the court
“that he dreads on returning home, due to the abusive, racist and threatening behaviour of Mr Brown, he finds this stressful which affects him daily, he is also left constantly checking doors, and windows to ensure his security and safety”
b. I accept given the nature of these threats [of violence towards Mr Weissam Alkabboli, the offensive gestures corroborated by the video footage, and the racially motivated elements of these acts, that this is having a significant impact on Mr Weissam Alkabboli’s daily life.
- As such, I am satisfied that the correct category for Level of Harm is 1. I accept that the starting point is 6 months imprisonment under the guidelines and note that the category ranges from 8 weeks to 18 months.
- I must then ask myself whether this meets the custody threshold and am reminded that this should be used as a last resort rather than an alternate and I must also consider proportionality.
- Considering the individual features of this case
a. These breaches occurred just 7 days after the last set of committal proceedings, which demonstrates a cavalier and blatant disregard for District Judge Powell’s order dated 19 January 2024.
b. I am satisfied that the breaches are indeed persistent, this being the second set of committal proceedings arising from Anti-Social Behaviour which occurred very quickly after the previous order.
c. The breaches are aggravated in nature by the fact they are racially motivated and involve serious threats of violence.
d. These are particularly nasty, aggressive, and racially motivated acts causing the victim to live in daily fear of harm, within his own home.
e. Mr Brown has already breached the original Anti-Social Behaviour Order and the Final Order of District Judge Powell which contained a Suspended 3-month sentence [which becomes activate, upon a further breach and is in force until January 2025]. That breach occurred just 7 days after this last order and the penalty for breaching this order is to activate a 3-month imprisonment under District Judge Powell’s Order dated 19 January 2024.
f. Considering the civil courts objectives, namely that my role is to secure compliance with future orders, punishment, and rehabilitation, I am satisfied that imprisonment meets the custody threshold and is indeed proportionate.
- I reject Miss Peden’s submissions that this should attract an adjourned consideration for the following reasons:
a. This action would not properly punish Mr Brown for the further breaches.
b. The breaches are very serious and aggravated by the racial and violent threats.
c. These breaches reflect a blatant disregard for District Judge Powell’s Order, which contained a conditional suspended 3-month sentence. Failing to activate District Judge Powell’s suspended sentence would not properly punish Mr Brown for the further and persistent breaches.
d. If a custodial sentence was not ordered it would not demonstrate to Mr Brown, the need to comply with future court order.
e. By Mr Brown’s own admission and in his own words “They didn’t do fuck all in court…little dick head”. It is his belief and perception that the Courts will not punish him in the event of breaching a Court Order.
Sentence Reduction
- I turn now to reduction in sentence for the early admission and mitigating features that Miss Peden, raises in her legal submissions which she submits, should reduce the sentence.
- I am persuaded that a reduction in sentence should apply due to Mr Brown’s early admission and contrition shown during these proceedings and reflected in his witness statement. This consequently has prevented the victim having to attend court and potentially give distressing evidence.
- I also accept that Mr Brown has been engaging well with those agencies that can support his Mental Health and Alcohol challenges and this will hopefully continue.
- Rather than imposing a 6-month sentence, I will therefore activate District Judge Powell’s order dated 19 January 2024 in which she imposes a totality of 3 months for all 7 breaches. Regarding the 3 admitted breaches which triggered these proceedings, I shall sentence Mr Brown to a further 1-month imprisonment for all 3 breaches which occurred on 26 January 2024. For the avoidance of doubt, this means Mr Brown will serve 3 months [arising from the activation of District Judge Powell’s suspended sentence] and a further 1-month sentence for the breaches relating to these accepted admissions. This will result in Mr Brown serving a total 4-month custodial sentence.
- I am satisfied that this sentence is proportionate and reflects the totality of the breaches under consideration. It will also demonstrate the significant consequences of breaching court orders to Mr Brown, which I hope will to secure future compliance with court orders moving forward.
- This concludes all legal proceedings.