England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT REGISTRY

		Birmingham Civil Justice Centre, The Priory Courts, Birmingham B4 6DS
		7th January 2016

SENTENCING REMARKS APPROVED BY THE COURT

HIS HONOUR JUDGE WORSTER:

1. This matter is listed before me this morning for the hearing of a committal application. The application is brought by a series of local councils, principally Wolverhampton City Council. The defendants, Robert Darby and Mark Guest, appear to represent themselves, this being the first hearing. They are aware of their right to obtain some legal advice. Firstly, because they were told of that right in a letter the council sent to them dated 9^th December 2015, and secondly, because I have today asked them whether they wish to get some legal advice. I have explained the nature of the proceedings and the potential consequences and I have given them some time to think about whether or not they would wish this matter to be adjourned so that they could obtain that advice.
2. I told them that if they wished to obtain legal advice, I would adjourn the matter so that they could do so. Having had that opportunity, they have decided to proceed with the matter and both of them have admitted the allegations that are made against them. They have admitted them after I had explained what those admissions meant. I was concerned that they might not understand the full effects of what their admissions included. Mr Darby is 25, Mr Guest is 35, and both are men who can understand the nature of these matters. I am satisfied that they both fully understand what it is they have admitted.
3. The application arises from the breach of an injunction was granted by His Honour Judge Robert Owen QC, sitting as a high court judge, on 1^st December 2014. It is a somewhat unusual injunction in that it is addressed to "Whom it may concern." It prohibits anyone from participating in car cruising, as defined in the schedule attached to the order, anywhere within the claimants' combined geographical area, as illustrated on a map attached, known as the Black Country area. It was an injunction which was obtained because there was a serious problem with what is called "car cruising" and as a consequence, it is that activity that was banned by the injunction.
4. Car cruising [was defined as meaning:

"Two or more motor vehicles between the hours of 3:00pm and 7:00am being on a highway or in a publically acceptable place within the Black County area, as defined on the map attached, at which any such vehicle or occupant of a vehicle performs any of the prohibited activities listed in clause 3 below, which causes or is capable of causing any of the prohibited consequences set out in clause 4."

Participating in car cruising means:

"Being the driver of or being carried in a motor vehicle in circumstances in which paragraph 1 applies."

Paragraph 3 provides for prohibited activities, which include driving in convoy and causing an obstruction on a public highway, whether moving or stationary. Prohibited consequences include significant public nuisance and significant annoyance to the public.

5. Because of the obvious difficulties in serving unidentified potential defendants, the court made a series of directions for publicity. Within the papers there is a statement from Mr Brown of Wolverhampton City Council who identified the steps which were to be taken to publicise the terms of the injunction:

• Advertisements in local papers.

• Publication of the injunction on the internet.

• The use of what were termed "positional media," media releases, print and broadcast media outlets and so forth.

• Social media messages.

• Signs on relevant roads, which include the words, "Warning. No car cruising in the Black Country area. High Court injunction in force," including logos [inaudible] the council and the West Midlands Police.

• A run of flyers.

• A short film.

• Electronic traffic signage.

• The promotion of these [inaudible] at areas which are referred to as "hot spots."

6. There have been applications for committal prior to this one involving other Defendants, which I have seen on the court file. But this application involves an incident on 25^th October 2015 at 9:30 in the evening. The incident took place on Springvale Industrial Estate, which is described as one of the hot spots for car cruising, just off the Black Country route in Bilston. It is plainly within the area covered by the terms of this injunction. Mr Darby was driving his Vauxhall Corsa, and his friend, Mr Guest, was in the passenger seat. I have read affidavits from the two police officers in this matter who were on the scene, Mr Hemming and Mr Lake. They saw about 30 vehicles parked up in a layby. 30 vehicles parked up in a layby on the side of the Black Country route at 9:30pm in an area which was known as a hot spot for this sort of thing, were obviously waiting for things to happen. They were also causing an obstruction.
7. When the police arrived, the 30 or so vehicles, there being 20 or so people standing in the layby, began to move off. The police officers pulled one of those vehicles over. It was in the middle of the convoy, as it was described, trying to leave the location. In that car were Mr Darby and Mr Guest. They were both entirely cooperative, with Mr Darby giving his name, his address, his date of birth and producing a full driving licence and Mr Guest similarly giving his details, although he does not drive. They were asked about their vehicle being in a road-racing convoy and were questioned about it being parked up on the side of a dual carriageway. Mr Darby denied all knowledge of a road-racing injunction covering the Black Country Route. He said he was driving his friend around and he had parked up to have a look at what was going on. The officers observed that both of them were calm and neither was obstructive when they were spoken to.
8. These proceedings were begun and committal applications sent to both parties, served on Mr Darby on 9^th December and Mr Guest on the 17^th. Those applications make it plain that what is alleged is that they participated with a degree of knowledge with the car cruise, firstly, by being there; secondly, by being in a vehicle which was obstructing the highway; and thirdly, by driving off in a convoy when the police arrived. The details of those breaches will be set out in the form that is completed at the conclusion of my judgment, but they are set out at paragraphs 15 and 16 of the allegations. They are in the same form against both defendants. Paragraph 15 for Mr Darby and paragraph 16 for Mr Guest.
9. The reason for the injunction is obvious. I have read the judgment of His Honour Judge Robert Owen QC. Racing in the streets is dangerous, not just for those involved, but for spectators and members of the public who get caught up in it. It is also the cause of some serious public disquiet and nuisance. There were complaints which led to the granting of the injunction. They identified the difficulties it causes for those who live locally, such as noise vibration and the disturbance of an ordinary way of life. If anyone engaged in racing gave it a moment's thought, they would realise that it would cause significant concern to individual people on the route, and to those charged with keeping the streets safe. As I say, there have already been applications for breaches. One that I have looked at resulted in a 3 month suspended prison sentence.
10. Both Mr Darby and Mr Guest understand the serious nature of the allegations made against them and in admitting those allegations, they understood that the court would take a serious view. This is a matter where public safety is involved. This sort of activity needs to be stopped, and it is important that those who might be tempted to play their part in these events, whether as direct participants or as spectators, understand that not only is this dangerous and illegal, but that the court will take a serious view.
11. Therefore, it seems to me that the only appropriate sentence is a custodial sentence. The question is, firstly, the length of that sentence and secondly, whether it should be suspended. I note that in the previous case that I referred to, a sentence of three months was passed for somebody who was in the process of racing with another vehicle on the street. That was a more serious event than the one in which Mr Darby and Mr Guest were involved, although what would have happened had the police not turned up I do not know. It is not suggested that they were involved actually in anything as dangerous as racing, and I do not intend to deal with them on the basis that they were intending to. This is the first occasion in which they have been involved in such a matter, and it is the first time that either of them have been involved in anything which would potentially carry a sentence of imprisonment. Mr Guest said he has had some driving offences, and Mr Darby is of good character.
12. In terms of a sentence after a trial, a period of six weeks would be appropriate. Given their plea, I reduce that by a third. So the sentence will be 28 days. In terms of suspension, both of them are in work, both of them have children for whom they have responsibility and they have been cooperative and frank. I take that into account, as I take into account the fact that they have apologised to the Court, and say they do not want to get involved in this sort of thing again. Those matters taken together justify suspending the sentence that I have passed. The custodial sentence underlines the serious nature of the matter, the fact that they have been committed and received the sentence is a warning to others. It seems to me that the best way to ensure that their conduct is not repeated is to suspend the sentence on terms that they comply with the injunction as made for the rest of its life, that is until February 2018.
13. Therefore, the order in relation to both of them in relation to each of the three breaches will be 28 days imprisonment, suspended upon terms that they comply with the injunction granted on 1^st December 2014 until its expiry on 1^st February 2018. Those sentences will be concurrent, so it will be a total of 28 days. Whilst there are three breaches, they are, in reality, different aspects of the one event and so it is appropriate to pass a concurrent sentence.

THE JUDGE: So, 28 days, gentlemen, suspended on terms that you comply with the injunction and I imagine that you are going to be asked to pay the costs of this application as well.

MR SHEEN: Thank you, my lord. I have filed and served two schedules of costs ....

[A discussion about costs follows]