BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

English and Welsh Courts - Miscellaneous


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> English and Welsh Courts - Miscellaneous >> Stonewater Ltd v Walker [2025] EWCC 32 (08 May 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2025/CC32.html
Cite as: [2025] EWCC 32

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable

information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable

restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.

 

 

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWCC 32

Case No:  K00WW300

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT WARWICK

Warwickshire Justice Centre

Newbold Terrace

Leamington Spa

CV32 4EL

 

Thursday, 8 May 2025

BEFORE:

DISTRICT JUDGE SEVIER

 

----------------------

BETWEEN:

STONEWATER LIMITED

Claimant

- and -

 

SUSAN ELIZABETH WALKER

Defendant

----------------------

Digital Transcription by Epiq Europe Ltd,

Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE

Web: www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/       Email: civil@epiqglobal.co.uk 

 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

----------------------

 

MS TALBOT appeared on behalf of the Claimant

MS WALKER appeared in person

----------------------

JUDGMENT (Approved)


1.              THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  I am sentencing you following an application for contempt of court bought by Stonewater Limited against you, Mrs Susan Elizabeth Walker, alleging various breaches of an antisocial behaviour injunction made on 2 April 2024 by HHJ Mithani, which has also resulted in a breach of a suspended sentence ordered by DDJ Witherington on 23 October 2024.  

2.              The claimant has been represented today by Ms Talbot of counsel, and Mrs Walker has represented herself.  The hearing was originally listed to take place on 15 April, but we adjourned on that date to enable Mrs Walker to try and get legal advice.  It was adjourned to 30 April, but due to lack of available courtrooms, it was adjourned by one day to 1 May on short notice.  Both parties attended, as did the witnesses, and I am grateful to them all for accommodating the last-minute change and, in particular, for Mrs Walker for continuing to engage with the court in relation to this.

3.              On 1 May, counsel for the claimant has an afternoon hearing in Coventry, and we were only able to sit until 1.00 pm.  Therefore, we heard evidence from the claimant's witnesses, and I was able to make findings in relation to the alleged breaches.  We then adjourned the matter for sentencing today at 2.00 pm.  

4.              At the outset of the hearing today, I reminded Mrs Walker of her right to obtain legal representation and to obtain legal aid for the purposes of today, and her right to remain silent, a right against self-incrimination. 

5.              Mrs Walker has remained calm throughout and followed what was being said and has made points which are pertinent to her throughout the hearing on 1 May and today as well.  She has been given time to consider anything that she wanted to say in relation to penalty and sentencing, and I have taken that into account.  

6.              Mrs Walker, I have explained to you that your behaviour towards your neighbours must stop.  It is crucial to your own wellbeing, as well as theirs.  As I said earlier, the incident involving Ms Wilson and smearing dog faeces on her window is particularly unacceptable.  You must take the injunction seriously.  You must continue to seek help

for your alcoholism because you have told me that it is when you are drinking that the issues tend to arise or get worse.  

7.              I have no power to make rehabilitation orders for you to engage with a support programme, and that is a fault of the legislation which does not provide me with such powers.  I can only use the powers given to me, and they are: an immediate custodial sentence, a suspended custodial sentence with conditions attached, adjourned consideration - i.e. that I will decide your sentence at a later date - a fine, or no order at all, and I must use those powers in accordance with the guidance given to me. 

8.              By way of reminder, at the hearing on 1 May 2025, the claimant proceeded on three of five allegations only, having withdrawn two.  I made findings that two allegations were proved against you.  

9.              The first, allegation number two: that on 18 January 2025, you approached Mr Boyle's property and began to film him on your mobile phone, in breach of paragraph 1 and 2 of the injunction dated 2 April 2024.  You admitted at the outset that you filmed Mr Boyle, but you denied approaching his property.  I found at that hearing that that had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

10.          In relation to allegation three: you smeared dog faeces on Ms Wilson's window and a put a bag of dog faeces through her window.  You denied this, but again, I found that the claimant had proved the allegation beyond reasonable doubt that it was in breach of paragraph 1(e) and 2, and in particular, that it was harassing and intimidating to Ms Wilson.  

11.          Turning to the penalty: The maximum term that can be imposed is two years' imprisonment.  I remind myself, and you, Mrs Walker, that under section 258 of the Criminal Justice Act that one half of the custodial term is served in prison before automatic release.  

12.          In reaching my decision, in addition to listening to your submissions, I have referred to the guidelines in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, part 81 of the

Civil Procedure Rules, and was provided with a copy of three cases.  Most pertinent being the court of appeal decision in Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022].  

13.          I invited Ms Talbot and Mrs Walker to address me on the penalty appropriate for the two fresh breaches and also in relation to the order of DDJ Witherington, dated 23 October, which stated that the sentence imposed is a 3-week custodial sentence suspended for 6 months on terms that the defendant comply with the terms of the injunction order which, as a result of my findings on 1 May, I must also find has been breached.  I need to consider whether that suspended sentence has to be reactivated.  

14.          Ms Talbot has said that the suspended sentence should be reactivated in full to ensure future compliance, because compliance is not optional and Mrs Walker is failing to comply.  They also advocate that I should impose sentences for the two new breaches, which they suggest would fall somewhere in category B2, but it is, of course, a discretion of mine to decide any sentences to impose.  

15.          They have highlighted aggravating factors.  There have been multiple breaches against Mr Boyle, and that he is specifically named in the injunction as being protected by it.

16.          I have asked them what the position is in relation to your occupation of your home, as there had been reference at a previous hearing about possession proceedings, and I understand that they have served notice on you in relation to your occupation, seeking possession on mandatory grounds, but that you are appealing that decision, and therefore that is not something which is imminent at this point in time. 

17.          You, Mrs Walker, have explained to me that you are getting support in the community through Change Grow Live, which is a drug and alcohol service, and that they have managed to find funding for a detox programme for you.  But they would prefer for you to undertake this in a rehabilitation centre as a residential detox alongside a rehabilitation programme.  You accept that you need help and you want to get it.  

18.          You have also explained to me that Mr Boyle is forcing you to breach the order by following you around and filming you with his mobile phone.  He keeps telephoning the police; he riles you and awaits reactions and then videos it.  You also told me that you were advised by the police to film Mr Boyle's behaviour towards you because you've been making complaints about him and that is why you do it.  

19.          You recognise that your behaviour is unacceptable at times and you acknowledge that you are emotionally unstable and that you are struggling to control how you react when you are provoked by Mr Boyle.  

20.          I remind myself and everyone here that the objective of sentencing is to secure future compliance, to punish the offender and to secure rehabilitation.  I also remind myself that custodial sentences should be reserved for the most serious cases and if I were to conclude that custodial sentences were appropriate, I must go on to consider the totality principle and ensure that the overall sentence is proportionate.  In determining the appropriate sentence for each breach the court has to consider culpability and harm.  

21.          In relation to the breach on 18 January, when you approached Mr Boyle's property and filmed him on your mobile phone, this is a breach which in my judgment falls into the middle culpability bracket of B.  It is deliberate.  You made a conscious decision to press his buzzer and film him as he opened his door.  However, the harm caused by this breach, in my view, falls into category 3 i.e. causing little harm or distress.  I find it to be little harm or distress because the victim, Mr Boyle, is encouraging the behaviour.  We all saw clear evidence of that on the video.  If it was causing him more than a little harm or distress, he would not be encouraging it in the way that he is.  

22.          When I consider the grid in Lovett v Wigan, the starting point for this breach is adjourned consideration and the category range is adjourned consideration to one month.  This is a second breach against Mr Boyle, and Mr Boyle is someone specifically named as being protected by the injunction.  They are usually considered as aggravating factors.  But I feel that it's necessary to add to the balance Mr Boyle's own behaviour and its impact on my conclusions of culpability.  I take into account that you, Mrs Walker, have to live in the same close as Mr Boyle.  It is difficult to avoid one another entirely when there are communal areas that you must both use, such as the laundry facilities.

23.          It's clear from the video evidence provided to the court that Mr Boyle goes to efforts to upset Mrs Walker and encourages her to breach the injunction.  He calls her obscene names and says things such as "go on, approach me" with clear reference to the fact that she will be in breach of the order if she did so.  He's also heard making comments such as "say goodbye to your flat".  Mr Boyle's conduct towards Mrs Walker is equally unacceptable as Mrs Walkers conduct towards him.  

24.          I must consider whether or not the custody threshold has really been crossed, and I remind myself it is only appropriate for the most serious breaches, but that does include less serious breaches where they are repeated breaches of the order, and this is a second breach against Mr Boyle and a second breach of the injunction.  I find that the custody threshold has been crossed, but that does not mean I must impose a custodial sentence only that I may.  Taking Lovett v. Wigan in account, I consider this breach at the lower end of B culpability, and as such I do not consider it appropriate to give it a higher sentence than the starting point, which is adjourned consideration.  

25.          I also remind myself that Mrs Walker admitted to filming Mr Boyle, even though she did not admit approaching his property.  There has been no physical injury, no substantive harm or distress nor physical damage to property.  

26.          I will adjourn consideration of the appropriate sentence for 6 months.  This is because Mrs Walker is engaging with her support worker, and this may in itself resolve the underlying issues.  This means, Mrs Walker, that in relation to this breach I am not giving a custodial sentence today.  However, it is incumbent on me to tell you what sentence I would have given had I chosen to give one, and if I were to have sentenced today, it would have been for 3 days, which would have been discounted to 2 days for the admission that you made.  Mrs Walker, this means that in 6 months' time I will consider your sentence for this breach.  If you have not breached the order again, it will likely be reduced and it could be no custodial sentence at all.  If you breach it again, or worse still, you breach it repeatedly, it's likely that I will increase the sentence and you will be sent to prison.  

27.          With regards to the allegation of 19 January 2025 that you smeared dog faeces on Ms Wilson's window and put a bag of dog faeces through her window, this is a breach which, in my judgment, falls into the middle culpability bracket of B.  It cannot be said to be minor. and it is deliberate, with the intention to cause harm or distress.  With regards to harm, it will of course cause some harm and distress to Ms Wilson.  Not considerable harm, but more than a little, and it falls therefore into category 2.  If I consider the grid in Lovett v Wigan, that provides a starting point in category B2:  a starting point for sentencing of 1 month with a category range of adjourned consideration to 3 months.  I then must consider adjusting it up or down.  There was no physical violence nor threats of violence against Ms Wilson, and it is the first time that the injunction has been breached as against Ms Wilson.  All other breaches alleged have involved Mr Boyle.  

28.          Mrs Walker did not admit to this breach, but she did comment that she had been very drunk on the day that it occurred.  I remind myself that there are now multiple breaches of the order and these two fresh breaches plus the breach of the conditions of the suspended sentence.  I need to decide whether or not the custody threshold has been passed, and I find that in this case that it has, but that it does not mean that I must impose a custodial sentence, only that I may.  It is open to me to give anything from adjourned consideration to 3 months within the standard range set out in Lovett v Wigan.  This breach falls in the lower end of B2.  There was no physical violence or threat and no serious damage to the property.  It would have caused harm and distress but still at the lower end.  

29.          Mrs Walker has said in mitigation that she is trying hard to behave and engage with her support team, Change Grow Live, and I find that adjourned consideration is the appropriate conclusion for this breach.  This is because Mrs Walker is engaging with her support team, and this may have the ability to resolve the underlying cause of the problem here.  I must indicate what sentence I would have passed had I sentenced today.  It would have been for 8 days.  No reduction would have been given because Mrs Walker denies it.  To be clear, I am not giving a custodial sentence today for this breach, but in 6 months I will consider your sentence.  If you have not breached the order again, it is likely to be reduced.  There could be no custodial sentence at all.  But if you breach it again, or do so repeatedly, it is likely that it will be increased and you will be sent to prison.  

30.          Finally, I come on to the reactivation of the suspended sentence.  The hearing on 23 October 2024, you admitted a breach of the injunction.  DDJ Witherington imposed a 3-week custodial sentence, suspended for 6 months on terms that you comply with the injunction.  You have failed to comply with the original injunction of 2 April 2024, and it has been argued before me that this means that the 3-week custodial sentence should now kick in and you must immediately be committed to prison for the 3 weeks.  The Sentencing Council guidelines states that the court must activate the custodial sentence unless it will be unjust in all the circumstances to do so.  I remind myself that civil courts dealing with ASBI injunctions do not follow the full Sentencing Council guidelines that are applied in the criminal sphere apart from in broad and general sense, but that even in the civil sphere it will be very unusual for me not to reactivate this sentence, and some compelling reason would have to be given.  

31.          I have been referred to the case of Solihull v Wiloughby in this respect.  I am not able to find any compelling reasons not to reactivate this sentence.  It is open to me to order that the suspended sentence shall take affect with the original term unaltered immediately, or alternatively, to make an order that the suspended sentence should take effect with a substitution of a lesser or greater term than that of the original term.  

32.          I have concluded that I must reactive the sentence imposed by DDJ Witherington.  However, I also need to consider totality and the 3-week period afresh in light of the evidence and findings I have made on further breaches that have resulted in this reactivation.  I have already concluded that I am not going to make custodial sentences in relation to either of those breaches today, and I am instead adjourning consideration for a period of 6 months.  I have explained in some detail the reasons for that.  Had they been serious breaches, then the 3-week sentence may have gone up, but they are not, and because of my comments regarding Mr Boyle's behaviour towards Mrs Walker in goading her into breaching the injunction, I am ordering that the suspended sentence take effect with a lesser term of 10 days.  This is because I am required to impose any custodial sentence for the least time that is just and proportionate to the seriousness of the breach, and I consider 3 weeks to be too long.  The two breaches which have reactivated this took place in space of just 2 days.  I am advised that Mrs Walker has already spent time in custody on 23 March for 1 day.  

Ms Talbot was there any other -- did you come to a conclusion on the other day?

MS TALBOT:  I found out why she was arrested on the13th, and that was due to an alleged assault on Ms Wilson on the 12th.

THE DISTRICT THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Right, thank you.

MS TALBOT:  She was wrongly released with no committed proceedings was bought by Stonewater --

THE DISTRICT THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  Fine, thank you.

MS TALBOT:  -- by them independently.

 

33.          THE DISTRICT THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  So Mrs Walker has already spent 1 day in custody, which I must double and then take off the 10 days.  So 10 minus 2 is 8.  So I am sentencing Mrs Walker to a total of 8 days in custody.  Mrs Walker, I remind you that you will only serve half of the sentence, and you will then be automatically released.  So you will serve 4 days in custody.  

34.          I direct that my sentencing remarks be published on the website of the judiciary of England and Wales, and further that a transcript of them be obtained at public expense on an expediated basis.  

35.          Mrs Walker, I need to remind you that you remain subject to the terms of the injunction, so when you do return home, it is important that you do not breach them.  I also remind you that you have an automatic right to appeal this decision without applying for permission.  The time limit is 21 days, and the appeal is to a circuit judge at the Coventry County Court.  I propose that the adjourned consideration hearing in relation to the fresh breaches should take place in 6 months' time.  I think that 8 November falls on a weekend, so we will have to give a slightly different date in relation to that.  Possibly the Thursday prior or after.  

MS TALBOT:  So, Thursday prior would be 6 November.

36.          THE DISTRICT JUDGE:  6 November.  So should we say that the adjourned consideration will take place on Thursday 6 November at 2pm.  

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010