English and Welsh Courts - Miscellaneous

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BIRMINGHAM

		33 Bull Street Birmingham B4 6DS
		16th June 2016

APPROVED JUDGMENT

HER HONOUR JUDGE CARMEL WALL

1. The application for committal before me concerns an order that was originally granted on an interim basis on 28^th September 2015 and was then made a final order in a slightly amended form on 16^th October 2015.
2. The terms of that order were that Nina Edman, whether by herself or by instructing, encouraging or allowing any other person, was not to behave in a manner likely to cause nuisance to residents of or visitors to Vardon Way, Kings Norton, Birmingham, by but not limited to shouting, swearing, fighting, banging, playing loud music, using racist language. There were two other terms of the order. The second was restricting or preventing her from using or threatening to use violence and harassing or intimidating any resident or visitor to Vardon Way, Kings Norton. The third was not to enter at any time Faircroft Road in Castle Bromwich. That order was to continue until 16^th October 2017.
3. By your admissions today, you have accepted four breaches of the order occurring on two separate occasions. I therefore find those breaches proved to the criminal standard in respect of the first of the terms of the order that I have indicated.
4. What you have admitted essentially amounts to anti-social behaviour on two separate occasions. The first was on 13^th March at about 1.35 in the afternoon, you shouted out of a window of your property at your neighbour Kathleen Crawford, "Fuck off". That was a breach of paragraph 1 of the order. Then the same day, a few minutes after that incident, you were in your property with the window open and shouted at Kathleen Crawford in relation to her children who were playing outside and within earshot, "Get the fucking kids in and get them to shut the fuck up".
5. Following those breaches, you were bailed. While on bail on 28^th May, which was during the course of the bank holiday weekend, at about 5.45 in the afternoon, you have admitted that you were shouting and swearing in your property with the window open, during the course of which you shouted, "Keisha, why can't you understand, I don't want to keep hurting you, why can't you understand I don't like it here? I don't want to stay", and on the same day, moments after that incident, you were shouting in your property and playing loud music. All of those matters put you in breach of paragraph 1 of the order.
6. There has been a previous breach of the order on 12^th October 2015, a breach of the interim order, whereby you went to the property indicated in paragraph 3 of the order. The judge dealt with that breach on your admission, by ordering no penalty to be imposed. I infer from that order that he regarded that breach as being of a trivial nature albeit it was still a breach of the injunction.
7. The matter has been listed for trial today. The trial has not taken place because you have admitted your conduct. That is something I take into account to your credit. I have already read aloud what it is that you have admitted. The context of the breaches is that the main complainant is one of your neighbours. Your neighbours are and have been disturbed by your conduct. The injunction was intended for the protection of those neighbours from the insidious nature of your anti-social behaviour and, in particular, to protect their young children from it. Miss Crawford, who is named in the allegations that I have read and which you have admitted, has two very young children, both of whom have special needs. That is a circumstance of which you are well aware.
8. When I sentence you, I have regard to the three purposes of sentencing. Firstly, to punish you for the breaches. Secondly, to ensure that this court order is complied with. Thirdly, I have to have regard to your rehabilitation.
9. I have been referred to and take account of the Sentencing Guideline Council Guidelines for Breach of an Anti-Social Behaviour Order even though this is not the first breach of the order and I have to sentence you for more than a single incident.
10. I have already indicated to your counsel and it is not disputed that the conduct on 13^th March when both children were present falls within the middle category of the Guideline, which is a starting point of six weeks in custody and a range up to 26 weeks in custody; and the conduct over the bank holiday weekend falls within the least serious category of the Guideline. That is the framework that I am applying when considering sentence.
11. When sentencing I balance the aggravating features of the breaches that you have admitted against the mitigating features including the personal mitigation that is advanced on your behalf. Insofar as the aggravating features, this is a breach of a court order. You were well aware of its terms. Compliance with those terms is not onerous. You have repeatedly breached the order. You breached it on two separate occasions. The second breach was while you were on bail for the first breach.
12. These breaches occurred at your home and therefore also where your neighbours live. Your neighbours cannot escape from the situation that is on their doorstep. The purpose of the injunction was to protect your neighbours and to enable them to live peacefully in their homes. I consider of particular seriousness the presence of the two young primary school age children, both of whom have special needs when the breaches on 13 March occurred.
13. When I sentence you, I also have regard to the fact that although you do not have a very serious recent history of offending before the courts, you are not a person of good character. You do have previous convictions in 2012 for battery and breach of a court order and, before that, for a public order offence.
14. Those are the factors that I take into account as aggravating factors.
15. As far as the mitigating factors that are advanced, I attach weight to the fact that you have admitted what you have done. That is what I am sentencing you for today. You admissions reflect the remorse that you have advanced through your counsel. Although there are two separate incidents, I accept that the second does not represent an escalation in conduct from the first. It is a separate breach committed on bail but it does not show that your behaviour is becoming more extreme in nature.
16. I take account of the fact that you suffer from alcoholism and that you are, importantly, taking steps to address that illness. You have been to your doctor for help. You seem to be genuinely trying to take steps that will address it. Although it is not entirely clear from the papers whether or not alcohol played a part in the breaches that you have admitted, it is very likely that your behaviour was dis-inhibited to an extent by the fact that you had been drinking. I accept that the fact that you have got an illness connected with your drinking is a factor that I have to take into account.
17. I also take into account when I sentence you that because the second set of incidents occurred over the bank holiday weekend, you were remanded in custody for two days. That is the first time that you have been in custody. I accept the submission that is advanced on your behalf that the experience has been salutary and a shock to you; so it has motivated you to address your drinking, more than previously.
18. When I consider my sentence, the least sentence that I can impose which is commensurate punishment for the breaches and after giving you credit for your admissions is this. In relation to the incidents on 13^th March, I am going to pass a concurrent sentence for each of the breaches of nine weeks' custody. In relation to the breaches on 28^th May, which were breaches committed on bail, I am going to impose a consecutive term of one week concurrent on each of those, which makes 10 weeks in all.
19. I am going to suspend that sentence for a period of 12 months. The reasons for suspending the sentence are these. Firstly, I want to give you an opportunity to pursue the alcohol treatment you have initiated and in respect of which you are currently awaiting an appointment. Secondly, if I were to send you into custody today, you would come out after a short time and still have to live alongside your neighbours. They need you to comply with this order. It seems to me that with a sentence of imprisonment hanging over your head, you are more likely to be motivated to behave well and address your alcohol abuse. That is the best way of achieving future compliance with the order.
20. I am not going to reduce your sentence to take into account the two nights that you served in custody. That is because part of the reason I am able to suspend the sentence is because you had that short, sharp shock. I am relying on that as a part of the justification that I have for suspending the sentence that I impose today. The effect of my sentence is that provided you comply with the terms of this injunction and are of good behaviour for the next 12 months, you will not serve any part of it. If you do breach the order again, you are liable to serve the sentence of 10 weeks that I have imposed.

THE JUDGE: Do you understand that?

MISS EDMAN: Yes

THE JUDGE: Thank you.

MR JONES: Madam, there is only one other matter and I think it is just a minor [skip], but just for the court record.

THE JUDGE: Yes.

MR JONES: In respect of the 28th May—

THE JUDGE: Yes.

MR JONES: When you just read it out you said, 28^th March.

THE JUDGE: I am sorry, 28th May.

MR JONES: I know the papers are quite clear it is May, but [inaudible].

THE JUDGE: Yes, yes.

MISS RICHARDSON: Your honour, in the circumstances, I do not know whether I do need to seek the costs simply of counsel attending today, subject to the usual protection because she is legally aided.

THE JUDGE: Yes, Mr Jones?

MR JONES: Indeed, the usual order, madam.

THE JUDGE: Yes.

MR JONES: Subject to the public funding assessment, legally aided costs... the standard wording is on—

THE JUDGE: Yes.

MR JONES: I have it somewhere.

MISS RICHARDSON: [Inaudible] legal aid.

MR JONES: It is civil, no it is, no, committals are now dealt with under Criminal Legal Aid.

THE JUDGE: I think it is Criminal Legal Aid, yes.

MR JONES: Yes.

MISS RICHARDSON: The usual order that I have had in this court is for it to be suspended, unless ordered by a district judge, something along those lines.

MR JONES: Yes.

THE JUDGE: Perhaps I can invite you to agree and draft a form of order.

MISS RICHARDSON: We will agree something. I think he is right.

THE JUDGE: Yes, thank you very much.

[Hearing ends]