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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

		The Law Courts, Chaucer Road Canterbury CT1 1ZA
		24th November 2017

MR RECORDER ROYALL:

1. This is a judgment relating to applications by the claimants, Medway Council, in relation to breaches of two injunctions, the first granted by Theis J on 10^th November 2015 and the second, the protection from harassment injunction, which was granted on 30^th September 2015 and restated by Her Honour Judge Hammerton on 20^th November 2015. I adopt, in regard to the history of the matter the judgment of His Honour Judge Scarratt, which is at A26 through to A30 of the bundle. I only rely on that judgment on relation to the history of the matter and not in relation to the circumstances of the applications that are before the court today.
2. I will deal with each in turn. Firstly the local authority allege breaches of the reporting restriction injunction of Theis J as set out in their application dated 6^th October 2017 and in the witness statement of Ann Dominey dated 16^th October 2017.
3. The local authority set out in the application the alleged breaches at paragraph (c). I do not propose to read them out because Mr L in his evidence, is the first to accept that the incidents factually occurred. He says that the facts alleged do not support and constitute a breach of that injunction in that he has his personal right as a father to name his own son and his age and indeed subsequently a photograph, but denies that that was likely to identify him and then asked whether there was any evidence that indeed he had been identified. That of course is not the terms of the injunction. The terms of the injunction relate to the fact of giving information, name, date of birth, photograph, which would be likely to identify the child. Mr L says that the picture was taken when his son was nine years old and he had his red eyes and, therefore, there was no question of these publications leading to or likely to lead to the identification, or risk of identification, of the child.
4. I reject those submissions. I am satisfied in my Judgement that the information given by Mr L, over a period of time, as identified by the Claimant do indeed indicate a likelihood of identification being a direct breach or breaches in respect of the injunction of Theis J.
5. Secondly the L.A. alleged breaches of the injunctions granted pursuant to the Protection of Harassment Act 1997 as set out in their evidence. Again Mr L openly and honestly accepts that the events occurred, he does not deny them. But he says that the injunction is 'illegal', 'that he cannot comply with an illegal injunction': "I have to carry on, these people are a danger. I will carry on, it is my right. This is a crime that needs to be reported. There is corruption."
6. Mr Challoner, in fairness to the defendant, referred me to section 1(3) of the Protection of Harassment Act setting out the various defences: Firstly, being in respect of a pursuit to prevent crime; secondly, if pursued for a requirement of law; or thirdly, in all the circumstances of the case it was reasonable. There is no evidence to say that a crime has been committed. The matter is being investigated by the statutory body but I accept that that statutory body has no criminal investigatory powers.
7. I am satisfied that Mr L was not acting in reliance upon statute and nor am I satisfied that his course of conduct was reasonable. It is a war of attrition, for Mr L to put his case, about which I accept he feels very strongly, but would say he was approaching the matter in a misguided manner.
8. The only matter of criminal investigation is in respect of the protests from the top of Medway Council building, as set out in B120 at (f) and at B123 at 5. The police and the prosecution have decided that they are pursuing this matter. That would of course be action taken by them of a criminal nature but not by Mr L to prevent crime.
9. To avoid the possibility of any confusion Mr Challoner withdrew those 2 matters. I accept that. In my Judgement I rely upon the other matters listed in the breaches which are accepted by Mr L.
10. I should say that having heard from him, at some length but perfectly properly, he accepts these breaches in respect of both injunctions and I am satisfied, having dismissed any defence raised by him, I am satisfied on the criminal standard and burden of proof, that these matters are proved to that standard and I am indeed satisfied so as to be sure.
11. This is not the first time that the defendant has come before this court. The first, and Mr Challoner you may have to help me exactly with the date, but 18^th January 2017 I think was the date of the sentence ...

MR CHALLONER: Your Honour I believe that's correct yes.

THE RECORDER: ... when committal proceedings were taken, the alleged breaches were proved, and as a result the defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 56 days suspended for a period of 12 months. He is, therefore, in breach of that suspended order.

MR L: We will not be gagged.

MALE VOICE: Sorry?

MR L: We will not be gagged.

MALE VOICE: No, yeah you won't be that time.

MR L: We will not be gagged.

MALE VOICE: I know.

MR L: We will not be gagged your Honour.

THE RECORDER: Sorry?

MR L: We will not be gagged okay.

THE RECORDER: I didn't hear.

MR L: We will not be gagged.

MALE VOICE: Gagged.

MR L: Gagged, 'J A G G E D', we will not be gagged okay.

MISS GAFFNEY: Gagged.

MR L: Prison, not prison we will not be gagged.

THE RECORDER: That order was suspended for a period of 12 months expiring on 18^th January 2018. That order was made specifically in relation to the breach of Theis J's order. There were subsequent committal proceedings in respect of a breach or breaches of the protection from harassment injunction and again the Judge, having found matters proved, sentenced the defendant to a further term of imprisonment of 56 days suspended, as I read the file, for an indefinite period.

MR CHALLONER: Your Honour I believe it was suspended for 12 months until 15^th June 2018.

THE RECORDER: I could not ...

MR CHALLONER: It's B97.

THE RECORDER: I did not find that but ...

MR CHALLONER: Apologies your Honour.

THE RECORDER: ... yes, thank you. Well for the record purposes yes I have got it, the order was suspended until 4 p.m. on 15^th June 2018. The Defendant is therefore also in breach of that suspended order.

12. These are matters which come before the court alleging that Mr L. is in contempt of the court. I am well aware of the authorities involved in dealing with issues of sentencing on such breaches and the authorities. There is no regret or remorse The maximum period of sentence is a period of 2 years. Mr L has clearly said to me: "I will carry on, it is my ..."

MR L: Till my son come back home okay.

THE RECORDER: "It is my right to do so."

MR L: To name my own son this is my right okay. It will not work because they will, they will be identifying them many much more than it was before so you can imprison me but you'll not imprison all of them. It's okay.

THE RECORDER: I am satisfied that having been subject to two previous suspended orders, and now being advised by Mr L that he will carry on ...

MR L: Unless they will answer my negotiations your Honour.

THE RECORDER: ... as he has ...

MR L: ... not indefinitely.

THE RECORDER: ... done in the past, then Mr L I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 6 months, in relation to each breach, Mr Challoner to run concurrently, and I put into effect the suspended 56 day sentence of imprisonment in respect of each of the two breaches, again to run concurrently, meaning that Mr L will serve a total of 8 months imprisonment.

- - - - - - - - - -

Approved

Martyn Royall

Recorder 30^th January 2018