Claim number: D00SB061
Wiltshire County Council
- On 25 May 2017 the court made an order against Jake Cooke which included a provision forbidding him from entering an area bordered in red on an attached plan which included Sparrow Street in Trowbridge. The order was made without notice having been given to Jake Cooke and a return date of 28 June 2017 was provided for in the order.
- On 30 May 2017 at 2.50pm Jake Cooke was served personally with the order of 25 May 2017 together with the other documents referred to in the certificate of service of Anthony Paul Rosinger dated 31 May 2017.
- On 11 June 2017 Jake Cooke was arrested for attending a property at 19, Sparrow Street. He was brought to court on 12 June 2017 but the court was unable to deal with the matter on that day and adjourned the case to 28 June 2017 and remanded Jake Cooke on bail to attend court on that day.
- On 28 June 2017 Jake Cooke failed to answer his bail. District Judge Brookes then proceeded to hear evidence in the Defendant’s absence and found that the breach had been proved according to the criminal standard of proof and that the Defendant had been served on 30 May 2017. The learned judge adjourned sentence until the Defendant could be brought before the court and issued a warrant for the Defendant’s arrest.
- Since the retirement of District Judge Brookes on 1 September 2017, the case comes before me for sentence. The breach for which I must pass sentence on the Defendant is the proven breach that he attended 19, Sparrow Street in Trowbridge on 10 June 2017.
- I have considered all that the Defendant has said today in mitigation. The Defendant told the court that his mother died 3 ½ months ago and that in the last couple of months he had been suffering with stress. He explained the recent history with his children and the involvement of social services. He has now found work full time on a building site and wishes to pursue a career in the music industry.
- In sentencing the Defendant today there are three objectives to be considered:
- The first is punishment for breach of an order of the court;
- The second is to secure compliance with the court’s orders, if possible;
- The third is rehabilitation.
- I take into account that this is the first breach of the order of the order of 25 May 2017. I am satisfied that the Defendant knew that by attending Sparrow Street on 10 June 2017 he would be breaching the order of 25 May 2017. It is material that the breach occurred within 11 days of being served with the order.
- I am satisfied that a custodial sentence is appropriate and that the sentence shall be one of 14 days imprisonment. In order to secure compliance with the order of 25 May 2017, I consider that it is appropriate that the sentence should be suspended. Consequently, I intend to suspend the sentence until 25 May 2018 which is when the order of 25 May 2017 expires.
- The sentence is suspended on condition that there is no further breach of the order of 25 May 2017. If there is a further breach there will be two consequences. The Defendant will be punished for those further breaches and in addition will find the suspended sentence activated consecutively.
- This is the sentence of the court.
District Judge Bloom-Davis
6 September 2017