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, 33 Bull Street, Birmingham B4 6DS.
		20/01/2017

MR. JUSTICE HOLROYDE:

1. On 1^st of December 2014 His Honour Judge Owen, QC, granted an injunction against persons unknown, pursuant to section 22 of the Local Government Act 1972, prohibiting car cruising in the Black Country area. He did so because the evidence before him showed that there was a serious and continuing problem in that area of persons engaging in noisy, dangerous and illegal activities involving the racing of cars and the performing of driving stunts, which caused a high level of nuisance and inconvenience, and significant danger to life and limb, to local residents and others going about their lawful business.
2. The injunction order and the schedule attached to it gave a definition of car cruising for the purposes of the order. The definition included vehicles performing any of a list of specified prohibited activities which caused, or were capable of causing, any one of a list of specified prohibited consequences. So far as is relevant to this case, the prohibited activities included participating in a car cruise and driving in convoy at speed and causing excessive noise, which caused, or was capable of causing, significant public nuisance and significant annoyance to the public.
3. The order applied to car cruising in the Black Country area. That area was defined in the order. It included the Flood Street car park and the surrounding roads in Dudley.
4. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council and other local authorities who had successfully applied for the injunction, went to considerable lengths, as His Honour Judge Owen's order required them to do, to ensure that the terms of the injunction were widely publicised. In addition to notices in the local press and other steps, prominent signs were placed at various locations throughout the area. The map which has been provided to the court indicating the location of those signs shows that there were, at all material times, a number of them at or near to the Flood Street car park.
5. It was only after all of those steps had been taken to bring the order to the attention of the public that it came into effect. It did so on 2^nd February 2015. It remains in force for three years until 1^st February 2018.
6. At a hearing before me on 21^st of December 2016 these two Respondents, Sam Stuart Green, now aged twenty, and Reuben Charlesworth, now aged nineteen each admitted breaches of that order. They each admitted that they participated in a car cruise near the Flood Street car park in Dudley on the evening of 8^th of August 2016. They each admitted that they had driven in a moving convoy, travelling at speed and causing excessive noise, which was conduct which caused, or was capable of causing, significant public nuisance and significant annoyance to the public. The effect on local residents is very clearly spelled out in the evidence before the court.
7. The Respondents, Messrs. Green and Charlesworth, did not act alone. They and their cars were part of a convoy of about nine cars. The convoy caused a moving obstruction of the roads around Flood Street. It then drove on to the car park where at least some of the vehicles performed doughnuts and handbrake turns. I make no finding that either of these Respondents did so. No such specific allegation is now pursued against them. Group misconduct of this kind must however be viewed in its entirety, as well as focusing upon the acts of an individual Respondent, because from the point of view of the public who suffer as a result of the group activity, it is the overall activity to which individuals contribute which causes such irritation and distress.
8. The evidence indicates, and I accept, that loud music was being played from some of the vehicles. A local resident who told the drivers to leave the area was subjected to abuse and intimidation.
9. The Respondent, Mr. Green, filmed some of the activity and uploaded it to social media. I have seen two clips of the film which he recorded. I accept from the evidence I have seen that there is an audio content to the recording, although I have not been able to listen to it. What I have seen would win few awards for cinematography, but it makes very clear what was going on. Mr. Green, first of all, recorded his own car. It has been equipped with some special system of lighting which enables him to cause not only the headlights, front side lights and rear lights, but also additional and very bright roof-mounted lighting, to flash continuously. It does so doggedly throughout the minutes of film I have watched.
10. The film also shows the other cars assembled on the car park, for the most part stationary during the clips I have seen, and it shows various young men and women standing around or walking around the car park looking at one another's vehicles. There are to be seen a few steps of dancing, consistent with the evidence that loud music was being played from the cars.
11. At some point in the longer clip of film the visual image is accompanied by a message. It says: "Everyone from all car clubs land in Flood Street": clearly, an invitation to anyone watching the live broadcast on social media to make their way to the scene and add to the numbers present, and thereby of course to add to the nuisance caused.
12. Mr. Green (who has represented himself with considerable ability) tells me that it was not he who actually posted that message, it was probably one of the companions who were with him when he was filming. I am prepared to accept that is so, but it is nonetheless, in my judgment, a serious aggravating feature of Mr. Green's breach of the injunction that he saw fit to film it and to transmit a live broadcast via social media.
13. The following features make this, in my judgment, a serious case of breach of the court's injunction. First, there can be no doubt that all those present must have known of the injunction. The steps taken to bring the injunction to public attention were so widespread, and the prominent street signs were located so close to the scene, that none of those involved can have been in any doubt that they were breaking the court's order. There can be no suggestion that anyone acted on the spur of the moment. This was activity spread over a period of time and, clearly, involving at least some element of coordination between those involved.
14. Secondly, each of these two Respondents was part of a group which, quite deliberately, flouted the order of the court. I emphasise again that they were part of a group because, as I have said, in circumstances such as these breach of the order involves not merely their individual acts, but also their participation in the activity of the group. The more people who are assembled, the more noise, the more nuisance, the more disruption to the lives of local residents and, significantly, the more intimidating the presence of those involved will be to local residents. Sheer weight of numbers would be a significant deterrent to any member of the public who wished to complain about the noise.
15. Thirdly, as Mr. Green's filming of the events shows, those taking part were evidently taking pleasure in acting in defiance of the court's injunction. This was an ostentatious display of their vehicles and it was a showing off on their parts. Far from being ashamed of their conduct, it would appear that those involved were keen for others to know what was going on and perhaps to join them.
16. In short, in my judgment, these two young men played their individual parts in outrageously selfish and antisocial behaviour with no thought at all for the convenience or welfare of their fellow citizens.
17. When the case first came before me in December it did initially seem to me that the Respondents still did not recognise just how serious their conduct had been. It is, however, to their credit, and a significant factor in their favour, that on that occasion (being the first appearance before the court) each of them admitted the breaches of the injunction with which I am now concerned.
18. As Mr. O'Gorman in his admirable submissions on behalf of Mr. Charlesworth pointed out, it is a fact that on the same occasion another young man charged with breach of the injunction made no such admission. His case was different, and the course taken in the proceedings against him - now terminated - has no direct bearing on the position of these two Respondents; but I readily accept that it always involves a degree of moral fibre for one young man to make an admission of wrongdoing when another does not do so.
19. When determining the appropriate sanction for an admitted breach of injunction of this kind, the court has a number of objectives. First, the sanction is intended to ensure compliance in the future with the court's order. Secondly, it is intended to protect the public who would be affected by future breaches and who have been affected by past breaches. Thirdly, it is intended as a punishment to those who have breached the order, to bring home to them the seriousness of breaching a court's injunction.
20. Mr. O'Gorman realistically acknowledges - and I have no doubt - that the seriousness of the conduct, to which I have referred, makes it necessary that custodial sentences be passed. The real issues in the case are as to the length of the appropriate custodial term and as to whether in either of these cases it can properly be suspended.
21. Mr. Green, addressing me on his own behalf, made clear that he now regrets what he did and apologises for it. It is apparent that there is a much better side to his personality. To his credit he has served with the armed forces for a period of years. He emphasises - and I think he is justified in emphasising - that the events of August 2016, with which I am concerned, occurred a comparatively short time after his leaving the Army and thus at a time when he was excited to be back in the company of old friends. He says (and I am prepared for present purposes to accept) that having been away in the Army for much of the last several years he had not fully appreciated at the time just how much inconvenience and distress had been caused to the residents of the Black Country by this sort of car cruising activity. He tells me (and, again, I am prepared to accept) that he does now fully appreciate the seriousness of the behaviour.
22. Mr. Charlesworth, through Mr. O'Gorman, also apologises and has also been able to point to a much better side to his character. He has put before the court letters by way of testimonial which show not only that he has individually excelled at his chosen martial art, but that despite his comparatively young age, he has been trusted to train younger persons and has acted as a good role model to them. He has shown a diligent work ethic. As Mr. O'Gorman submits on his behalf, part of the punishment which Mr. Charlesworth brings upon himself is the damage done to his reputation by his acting in breach of a court order and being punished for it.
23. Those, in my judgment, are the relevant factors which I have to balance.
24. I regard Mr. Green's case as more serious than that of Mr. Charlesworth because, as I have said, the uploading of a live broadcast for social media is a serious aggravating feature. There will therefore be a difference between the two in terms of the length of the sentence I am about to pass.
25. What is clear to me is that it is necessary for the court to emphasise the seriousness of breaches of this court injunction. Counsel, Miss Newman presenting the case for the Applicant, has helpfully drawn my attention to the transcript of another decision in this court building in which other young men came before the court for breach of the order. The fact that there has had to be more than one court case dealing with breaches of the order suggests that the message may not fully have been appreciated. If there be any doubt about it, then those persons tempted to breach the order in the future should be in no doubt that a serious view is taken.
26. I have hesitated over whether the sentences I am about to pass must take effect immediately or can properly be suspended. In the end, and by a narrow margin, what saves these two young men from having to serve their sentences immediately is that they have come before the court, in my view, genuinely remorseful for what they did. They are able to point to their previous good character and, very importantly, they are able to rely upon their good sense in admitting their breaches at the earliest opportunity.
27. So stand up, Mr. Green. In your case for your admitted breaches of the court's injunction the court imposes upon you concurrent terms of four months' imprisonment. They will be suspended on condition that for the remaining period of the order made on 1^st December 2014, namely until 1^st February 2018, you comply with that injunction and do not breach it in any way. You must understand that if you were to breach the injunction again, in addition to whatever penalty you might bring upon yourself by that further breach, you would become liable to serve some or all of this four-month sentence. Do you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT SAM GREEN: Yes, my Lord.

28. I will come in a moment to any financial consequences of this matter, but for the moment you may sit down.
29. Mr. Charlesworth, will you stand up, please? In your case the penalty for each of your admitted breaches, concurrently, is a term of three months' detention. In your case also it will be suspended on condition that you comply with the injunction for the remainder of its duration, which is something over a year from now and you, too, must understand that if you were to breach it again you would be liable to be punished for that breach, but, in addition, you would be liable to have this penalty, or part of it, brought into effect. Do you understand?

THE DEFENDANT REUBEN CHARLESWORTH: Yes, sir.

30. Thank you. You may sit down. I wrongly referred when specifying the sanction in Mr. Green's case to imprisonment. By reason of their age in each case it will be a sentence of detention in a young offender institution were it ever to be implemented.
(Upon hearing the parties the court ordered each Respondent to pay the sum of £80 by way of a contribution to the application fee.)