English and Welsh Courts - Miscellaneous

IN THE CARDIFF COUNTY COURT

		The Combined Court Centre Park Street Cardiff
		26th May 2015

CARDIFF COUNTY COUNCIL -v- LEE LITCHFIELD 26th May 2015 APPROVED JUDGMENT

JUDGE JARMAN:

1. This is an application by Cardiff County Council to commit to prison Lee Litchfield. The notice to show cause why he should not have been committed to prison is dated 12^th May 2015. The situation arises from a long history of difficulty between Mr Litchfield, who lives in Council accommodation at 23 Mullins Avenue, Rumney, and other tenants, and in particular for these purposes Rachel Foley, who lives at the same block of flats with her partner and a small child. An application for an injunction against Mr Litchfield by the Council was made on 30^th January 2015. In support of that application, five witness statements from residents and officers were filed in support of the application.
2. The matter came before the court on 12^th February. An order was made on that day when Mr Litchfield did not attend, although he had been served with the order, that he is forbidden whether by himself or by instructing or encouraging any other person,: (a) from behaving in a threatening and aggressive manner or cause a nuisance towards any residents or lawful visitors of the flat, Block 21-27, Mullins Avenue, Rumney; (b) from assaulting, threatening or intimidating or causing nuisance to Rachel Foley, members of her household, or lawful visitors to her property; (c) from entering any part of the premises known as the first floor of the stated block of flats.
3. That order was served on the defendant Mr Litchfield along with the application for an injunction and all of the evidence in support of that application. The order contained a power of arrest. On 7^th May 2015, Mr Litchfield was arrested. There was another witness statement of Miss Foley filed, together with a statement of the arresting officer. The statement of Miss Foley sets out that on the morning of 7^th May 2015, she says that she has heard Mr Litchfield in the communal area shouting comments like she had grassed him up again, saying, "Fuck you, fuck you." That continued for some five minutes. Then there were loud bangs on her front door. She believed that that was Mr Litchfield. She did not answer the door accordingly. Then she heard him shouting comments from his flat, which is below, such as, "You fucking bitch, you grass."
4. The matter came before District Judge Crowley. He made an order releasing the defendant, Mr Litchfield, from custody forthwith. He also adjourned the application for committal to Friday 15^th May. He gave permission to the Council to serve upon Mr Litchfield a notice to show good cause why he should not be committed to prison, and also ordered that he should file and serve any witness evidence upon which he intended to rely on or before 13^th May 2015. Notice to show cause was then served upon him. The notice dealt with the incident on 7^th May. It was alleged that he had broken the order of 12^th February by shouting in the communal corridor the comments referred to by Miss Foley in her statement and also shouting the comments she heard from the flat below.
5. The matter was first before the court on 15^th May 2015. On that occasion His Honour Judge Seys-Llewellyn QC adjourned the hearing until today. On that occasion, Mr Litchfield was assisted by his cousin, a Mr David Haines, and the Council was represented by its Solicitor. I am told that the reason for the adjournment was that legal aid at that point was not forthcoming.
6. A legal aid certificate was issued I am told last Thursday. It was back-dated to 12^th May. Nevertheless, because of commitments, no steps have been taken since then to deal with the filing of any evidence on behalf of Mr Litchfield. Both parties this morning sought an adjournment. Miss Foley is present. She hopes to be re-housed within two weeks. That may or may not happen, but it seemed to me that the matter having been adjourned on one previous occasion, Miss Foley being here, Mr Litchfield being here and having the prospect of prison hanging over him, that having regard to the interests of justice I should hear the matter.
7. It then transpired after I had given Mr Shanahan a opportunity to take instructions from his client that he did admit one very limited breach. He admits that in a telephone conversation from his own property, which may have been overheard by Miss Foley, he did use the words in reference to her, "Bitch", and that she was a grass. That, it seems to me, is a breach of the order. It is a breach in that those words did cause a nuisance to Miss Foley. Miss Foley maintains that the evidence she gave in her statement is correct, but indicated through the Solicitor for the Council that she was content for the matter to be dealt with today on the basis of that admitted breach.
8. Accordingly, I put those matters directly to Mr Litchfield. I am satisfied that he understood what was being put to him and I am satisfied that he accepted that albeit limited breach of the order. Accordingly, it now falls to me to pass sentence upon him. Again properly it was indicated on behalf of the Council that so far as they were concerned, they were not pressing for an immediate custodial sentence, but were content to accept a suspended order if that were considered by the court to be appropriate.
9. Mr Shanahan then mitigated on behalf of his client. As I have indicated, there is no evidence before me as to the position which he adopts. There is however a letter from Taff Housing Association received by the court on 12^th May, addressed to whom it may concern. It is a letter from a Tenant Support Officer. He visited Mr Litchfield to carry out an assessment of housing related need on 11^th May following an urgent referral to the tenant support service. At the assessment, it is said it was apparent that Mr Litchfield was in serious need of some support and help with tenancy and personal issues. The flat is in poor condition. Mr Litchfield explained to Mr Fletcher that he suffers from depression, anxiety and paranoia. At the assessment, Mr Fletcher did find that Mr Litchfield was in need of some support and accordingly has agreed to sign him up for two years tenancy related support with weekly visits from a support officer. The support will concentrate upon improving Mr Litchfield's housing condition with a long view to him finding alternative accommodation which will remove him from the current situation.
10. Mr Litchfield's health issues and difficulties are matters which I am asked by Mr Shanahan to take into account and I do. He also asked me to take into account that there were no previous breaches of this order. I do take that into account. However, I also note the relatively short time between the time when this order was made, the middle of February of this year, and the admitted breach, which occurred in early May.
11. There were other matters which I was invited to take into account, such as difficulties about the relationship between Mr Litchfield and Miss Foley and her partner, but there is no evidence about those matters before me and Miss Foley has not had a chance to answer those matters. I accept that there were difficulties arising and based upon the evidence of, or the letter, of Mr Fletcher.
12. Fourthly, Mr Shanahan invites me to take into account that on the admitted breach Mr Litchfield did not intend for Miss Foley to overhear what he was saying. On his admission, I have to accept that.
13. It does seem to me that this was, albeit a brief but a clear breach of the order. As I have said, it occurred less than two and a half months after the order was made. It does seem to me that a custodial sentence is justified and that is the only sentence which is justified. Nevertheless, in all the circumstances I am of the view that it is proper to suspend that sentence for a period of six months. The appropriate sentence in my judgment is one of 28 days imprisonment, which I shall suspend for six months.

JUDGE JARMAN: Mr Litchfield, can you stand again please. You will understand that I have passed a prison sentence on you of 28 days. That is suspended, do you understand what that means?

MR LITCHFIELD: (Upset) Yes, Sir.

JUDGE JARMAN: It means that as long as you comply with this order you will not have to serve that sentence, but you must comply with the terms of the order. If you do not, then you are liable to be sent to prison for 28 days and if there is any further breach for a further period if that breach is found, you understand all that, do you?

MR LITCHFIELD: Yes, Sir.

JUDGE JARMAN: Right, I am going to ask Mr Shanahan to make sure that you do understand that…

MR SHANAHAN: I will speak to (inaudible), your Honour, yes.

JUDGE JARMAN: Thank you very much indeed.

MR SHANAHAN: I do not know whether the…

JUDGE JARMAN: Do take a seat, Mr Litchfield, thank you.

MR SHANAHAN: Sorry, your Honour. I do not know whether the order is going to be drawn up immediately, but whilst we wait for perhaps that to happen, I can speak to Mr Litchfield.

JUDGE JARMAN: Yes, very well. I am not sure it can be got that quickly, but thank you for that. Anything else?

MR GRIGG: No, your Honour.

JUDGE JARMAN: Anything else from you, Mr Shanahan?

MR SHANAHAN: No, thank you.

JUDGE JARMAN: Right. Thank you both very much for your assistance. I do hope that this will be the last this court hears about this difficult situation.