Case No.  SQ13Z00146

THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT STOKE-ON-TRENT
Bethesda Street,
 Hanley,
Stoke-on-Trent

Friday 16th May 2014

Before:-

HIS HONOUR JUDGE DUGGAN
in open court
     
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Staffordshire CC v Amanda Beech; Sentence (HH Judge Duggan)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGEMENT
HH JUDGE DUGGAN: 
1	Mrs. Beech’s case is listed before me today to consider sentence for breaches of  a court injunction which were proved to the satisfaction of the court on 24th March 2014. Mrs. Beech is again unrepresented before the court. I started by asking whether she wanted representation but she asked me to proceed without further delay.  I heard mitigation from Mrs. Beech before considering the sentence that should be imposed.
2	The breaches comprise 11 occasions when Mrs. Beech has made electronic publication of the name and/or photograph of her grandchild, C.B. and has identified the child as the subject of care proceedings.
3	Amanda Beech is a loving but misguided grandmother. It is with a sense of disappointment and frustration that I find I have no alternative but to punish her. My obligation is to protect her grandchild, whose welfare she has failed to respect and which she has placed in jeopardy.
4	There is a history of bad parenting in this family. When the child’s parents were unable to care for her, her grandmother applied to the court for the child to live with her, but when the history was understood, the court decided that there was no alternative but to place the child for adoption outside the family. The grandmother appealed the decision as far as she could but the decision was upheld. The child then found a good home with a new family who have now adopted her. The child is entitled to successful, stable, undisturbed family life in the new home determined by the law. 
5	Having failed to prevent this by legal means Mrs. Beech has taken steps outside the law. On the internet she has embarked on a campaign to undermine the child’s future. Amongst many postings depicting and naming the child as a “stolen child”, on 13th December 2013 Mrs. Beech issued a call for others to help to find the child in her new adoptive placement from an attached photograph. 
6	The grandmother has the right to complain and campaign against the system which decided her grandchild had to leave the family. However, on 3rd January 2014 I decide it would be very harmful for the child if her name and photograph continued to be published. I granted an injunction prohibiting this. My Judgment is available on the Bailii website and received extensive publicity. The grandmother chose not to attend the court in January but I insisted the local authority give her a transcript of my reasons which included a plea that she engage with the court if she had arguments which had been overlooked in her absence. 
7	The full details of the breaches of the Injunction Order committed by Mrs. Beech are set out in a full Judgment I gave earlier today. It is sufficient for the purpose of this sentencing Judgment to give details of two examples. Allegation number 1 is a posting by Mrs. Beech on Facebook in the following terms: “I have just had court papers handed to me. I have been gagged till (full name of the child) is 18 years old. How can this be? They steal my grandchild, then gag me. Fuck off.  You have no chance. I am still fighting for her, you idiots. You cannot bully this nana. The truth hurts and no one will shut me up. I will go to war for my family, you idiots.  Please spread the word.” The second example arises from the reporting on the B.B.C. website of 28th January 2014 of my decision to grant an Injunction Order.  Mrs. Beech linked the B.B.C. report to her Facebook page and continued, “Just to let you know, this is me, Amanda Jane Beech. It’s about my granddaughter (full name of the child). Stafford Social Services think they can bully me. The truth will be out.”
8	My task is to consider the seriousness of what Mrs. Beech has done. In passing sentence I must reflect disapproval of what she has done and make every effort to secure compliance with the court order for the future.  On 24th March 2014 I adjourned sentence because Mrs. Beech assured me that she had stopped acting in breach of the court injunction and that no further breaches would occur.  She told me that she would do her best to remove some of the old postings from the web which, if repeated, would constitute breaches of the injunction. Over the period of the adjournment local authority enquiries have revealed that it would appear that Mrs. Beech has stopped acting in breach of the court injunction.  Many of the old postings have indeed been taken down or modified so as to comply with the Injunction Order. There remains an online petition which has been modified.  It is unclear whether it would be possible for Mrs. Beech to do any more by way of modification of the terms of the petition but, in any event, this petition will lapse and be taken from the web in six weeks’ time by automatic process. 
9	These developments represent strong mitigation. Mrs. Beech explained to me that she was angry about the adoption of her grandchild. She still speaks of seeking justice and ensuring that the truth be told.  However, she accepts that the name and photograph of her grandchild must form no part of her continuing campaign. This is of course an entirely acceptable way forward. 
10	However, the breaches for which Mrs. Beech was responsible were particularly flagrant breaches. They were harmful in that they created a real risk that the child’s future would be undermined.  The breaches could lead to the identification of the child in her new home. This would cause damaging disturbance and destabilisation for the child. Whether or not she be found, the fact of these postings inevitably creates anxiety for the child’s adopters at the very time when the child’s best interests require those adopters to be able to concentrate on providing stability for her. Postings on the internet remain available and create the risk that in later years the child would herself come across them and suffer destabilisation. They also create the risk that they might in future years be seen by friends of the child who might cause her upset as a result.  It is clear then that these breaches are a serious matter. They must stop. It has taken the threat of prison for these postings to stop.  I remind myself that the maximum sentence available to me is two years’ imprisonment. I remind myself that this is the first occasion on which Mrs. Beech has appeared before the court to be sentenced for contempt of court. 
11	In all the circumstances, the seriousness of these breaches makes appropriate a total period of imprisonment of 56 days’ duration. However, the fact that Mrs. Beech has stopped acting contrary to the injunction coupled with the fact that this is the first occasion on which she has appeared before the court allows me to suspend the sentence of imprisonment. By suspending the sentence my intention  is to encourage Mrs. Beech not to start again with her use of the child’s name and photograph in connection with her campaign. 
12	The most serious allegations are those numbered 1, 2 and 3.  For each of these I impose 56 days imprisonment concurrent. The remaining allegations, 4 to 11, are serious but not so very serious as the first three. For these I impose for each a sentence of 14 days imprisonment in each case concurrent. The overall effect of my sentence is to impose 56 days imprisonment. This sentence will be suspended for a period of 12 months. It will be a condition of the suspension that Mrs. Beech refrains from acting in breach of the Injunction Order dated  3rd January 2014.
13	I conclude the Judgment by making clear to Mrs. Beech that there is no objection to her criticising the court, criticising the judge, the Social Services Department or the family justice system. She has an entitlement to campaign about these matters. What the court will not tolerate is the use of the name of her grandchild or the photograph of her grandchild in connection with this campaign.
Approved 21/6/14
RD