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 >> Birmingham City Council v Bishton [2015] EW Misc B23 (CC) (30 June 2015)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2015/B23.html
Cite as: [2015] EW Misc B23 (CC)
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
33 Bull Street Birmingham B4 6DS |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
| BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL | Applicant Local Authority | |
| -v- | ||
| MR. ROBERT BISHTON | Defendant |
____________________
1st Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP
Telephone No: 020 7067 2900. Fax No: 020 7831 6864
The Defendant appeared in person
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- This is an application by Birmingham City Council to commit Robert Bishton to prison for breach of an injunction which was granted on 5th of June 2015 by His Honour Judge Worster.
- The first term of that injunction was that Mr. Bishton should not use or threaten to use violence, harass or intimidate any person. The second term of that injunction was that he should not enter the area coloured in orange on the map attached.
- On two separate occasions Mr. Bishton has been found within that exclusion zone, the second of those occasions was 23rd of June 2015 and as a result of that breach officers attended to arrest him. He was taken to custody and when he was in custody it was found that he had a knife on him. He made, on that occasion, a threat to Inspector Downes, saying: "I'll slash your fucking throat, you cunt."
- That last incident is the fourth allegation against Mr Bishton, which he has today accepted, having been confronted with CCTV as to that.
- The third breach that Birmingham City Council seek to prove against Mr. Bishton is that when he was arrested, having been cuffed and taken to the back of the police van, he said: "You wait till I get these cuffs off." It is said by Birmingham City Council that this is a threatening phrase.
- I have two issues because there is no independent evidence as to whether or not Mr. Bishton said those words. My first issue is whether he did say what was alleged and my second issue is whether those words amount to a breach of the injunction and, in particular, paragraph 1 of that.
- I have heard evidence from P.C. Steven Lloyd-Warren in the form of a section 9 witness statement, which was prepared by him on the day of the incident in question and I have heard evidence from Mr. Bishton in the witness box today.
- P.C. Lloyd-Warren gives evidence that having placed Mr. Bishton in handcuffs, he walked him to the back of the police van, Mr. Bishton then said: "You wait till I get these cuffs off" and refused to enter the van.
- Mr. Bishton denied that he said those words and he said that he was not happy that he had been arrested. He was not happy about having been grabbed by P.C. Lloyd-Warren in the course of the arrest. He said he could not breathe, but he denied that he had said anything.
- I bear in mind that there is no independent evidence and that this is, effectively, one word against another. However, I do bear I mind that this is one incident out of a series of incidents where Mr. Bishton has shown contempt for the injunction made against him on 5th of June, where he has shown threatening behaviour to other police officers and where he was in fact armed with a knife.
- Having heard evidence from both parties I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the evidence of P.C. Lloyd-Warren is correct and that Mr. Bishton did say: "You wait till I get these cuffs off", so I am satisfied that the words were indeed said.
- In context that is clearly a threatening allegation. It is a phrase that can only be read, in my view, as making a threat against the police officers that once he gets the cuffs off something will happen, presumably violence, and that is intimidating and violent.
- In all the circumstances I am satisfied that the third allegation is made out and there are therefore four allegations of breach which are all either admitted or proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- I think the first order I have to make is to restore the consideration of the penalty for the first breach, so I am going to formally order that and I will consider the penalty for that in conjunction with the other three features that are before me today.
- Mr. Bishton, stand up, please. When this matter first came before the court the police gave evidence that you were a young man who was on the verge of taking a wrong turn in life and that there was an opportunity then for you to get away from this gang culture and turn your life around. Within a very short period of time of the injunction being made against you, you breached it four times. You breached it twice by being in breach of the exclusion zone. On the first occasion you say you did not understand it, but on the second occasion you say you simply did not care. It is not adequate to say that you don't care about court orders. Court orders are made for a reason, they are to be obeyed and if you do not obey them you will be punished.
- When you were arrested for the second of those breaches your conduct was reprehensible. You made threats to the officers who were arresting you and you made a threat to the officer who was not even involved in the arrest but happened to be standing by, which is a very serious incident, for which there can be no penalty other than a custodial sentence. You chose to have a knife on you and you chose to make threats about slashing Inspector Downes' throat and that must be taken extremely seriously.
- For that last incident I am going to sentence you to a period of six weeks in custody. For the first breach of the exclusion order (that is to say, the breach found proved on 17th of June 2015) I will sentence you to one week in custody. For the second breach of the exclusion order, two weeks in custody. For the threats to P.C. Lloyd-Warren, two weeks in custody. All these sentences will run concurrently to the last one, so that makes a total of six weeks in custody, of which the time that you have already served will count, so you have another five weeks to go plus one day, I think, is right.
- Do you understand all of that?
- Thank you. And you see the more you breach things, the more serious it gets, the more time in prison you get. It gets worse from now on in. If you take this as a lesson and stick by the injunction in future you will not go to prison again, it is as simple as that. The court order is there for you to obey it, it is there for a reason. If you do not obey it, you will end up spending more time in prison.
- Mr. Bishton, the council is seeking an order that you pay their costs, whether they come against you or not on that is up to them because, obviously, you have not got that much money, but I am going to make that order because you are in breach of the injunction, so if you win the Lottery tomorrow, you will have to pay their costs. Do you understand that?
- Is there anything that you do not understand in what has happened today?
- Thank you. Take him away.
MS RECORDER ROWLANDS:
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE DEFENDANT: No.