London Borough of Tower Hamlets -v- Tia Feeley

County CourtCommittal for Contempt of CourtJudgment

Case number: K05EC526

In the County Court at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch

11 March 2024

Before:
District Judge Bell

Between:
London Borough of Tower Hamlets
-v-
Tia Feeley

Judgment

DJ BELL:

  1. This is a matter that arises out of an injunction granted under Part 1 of the Antisocial Behaviour Crime and Policing Act, 2014. The Court made such an injunction on 15 November 2023. I have seen the evidence that the order was served on 14 December 2023.
  2. On 19 February 2024, Ms Feeley was arrested for breach of the injunction in relation to paragraph one and paragraph two. Paragraph one relates to a prohibition on her using or being in possession of any drug paraphernalia, in a certain area, and two relates to loitering within a certain area within the exclusion zone.
  3. She was brought before Judge Pigram on 20 February 2024, and he remanded her to today’s hearing. He completed a detailed order, which states the Order was handed to her, she was aware of the date and time of this hearing and was given the information regarding her various rights.
  4. Judge Pigram referred to the various s9 statements of the police and also a statement of Park Guard Hyde. He required that there be an affidavit served in relation to that latter individual and that has not been served.
  5. Ms Feeley was subsequently arrested and brought before the Court on 22 February for further alleged breaches. There is no evidence on the Court file in support of those allegations, nor whether she was provided with such information at the hearing. However, she was reminded of today’s hearing.
  6. Mr Lansdown is here for Tower Hamlets, Ms Feeley has not attended. I have considered whether I should proceed to hear the evidence in her absence and have determined that I should do so as Ms Feeley has informed of the hearing on two occasions and there is no evidence to state why she has been unable to attend.
  7. I have had the benefit from hearing evidence from PC Amy Simm, who is the police officer who was involved in her arrest on 19 February and who searched Ms Feeley and discovered on her a gold crack pipe and a poke, which I am informed is a device that is used for cleaning out crack pipes and as PC Simm explained, in effect, they go together. However, she was not the individual who saw her in the exclusion zone.
  8. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence of PC Simm, which was set out in her written evidence and today confirmed in her oral evidence, that on 19 February, the defendant was in possession of the items, being drug paraphernalia, in the specified area which is prohibited by the terms of paragraph one of the injunction.
  9. However, I do not have evidence in the form required by District Judge Pigram to deal with the issue of the exclusion zone and the second alleged breach.
  10. I need to consider what penalty should be imposed in relation to Ms Feeley’s contempt. Again, I have considered whether I should proceed in her absence or adjourn. She has not attended and obviously there is a time limit on me to consider these matters. She has had two reminders as to the date of this hearing, at both the hearing before Judge Pigram and the second hearing. I have considered whether I should adjourn for consideration of punishment, but given the repeated failure to attend, despite the reminder that occurred on 22 February, I am going to proceed.
  11. The Court of Appeal considered the approach that Court’s should take for breaches of Antisocial Behaviour Crime and Policing Act, 2014 injunctions in the case of Lovett, Smith, and Hopkins [2022] EWCA Civ 1631. The Court of Appeal’s position was that courts should consider that guidance set out in the Civil Justice Report that had predated that case. Therefore step one is to consider culpability and harm. In this case, in relation to the matter, obviously there must be some degree of premeditation in that Ms Feeley is carrying a crack pipe and poke, but it is not an example of the highest culpability. However, it is a deliberate breach, in my judgment, falling between A and C. As to harm, there is no evidence of any harm being caused to other individuals, merely that she is carrying paraphernalia which had been prohibited. As such, in my judgment the matter falls within culpability B category 3. As such, the starting point is adjourned consideration with a category range from adjourned consideration to one month imprisonment.
  12. In considering that matter, of course, the defendant has been arrested on three separate occasions. She was arrested in late December, only approximately a fortnight after service of the injunction, and at the second hearing, Judge Sterlini whilst finding breaches, discharged the matter. In effect, she had an initial dealing with the Court, and she has gone on to breach the injunction again on 19 February and has been subsequently arrested for alleged breaches.
  13. As such, she has demonstrated a history of disobedience of court orders. In addition, in relation to both the Judge Sterlini matter and this proved breach, they are matters that have happened relatively shortly after the order was made.
  14. She has not attended to put forward any issues of mitigation, nor for any admissions made.
  15. The issue is whether the Court should impose a custodial sentence. This, of course, is not the first breach by Ms Feeley and she has shown disregard for the court procedure. As such, I am satisfied, that given this second event of ignoring the court orders, that a custodial sentence is appropriate. However, it is one that should be suspended, it being the first such custodial sentence made. It is a matter where, as I indicated before, there are not other people directly involved, save of course, for the general antisocial nature of drug-taking. As such, I impose a penalty of 14 days, but suspended on compliance with the injunction, to the date the injunction expires at 11:59 on 31 December.