English and Welsh Courts - Miscellaneous

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BIRMINGHAM

		The Priory Courts 33 Bull Street Birmingham B4 6DS
		22nd March 2016

HIS HONOUR JUDGE McKENNA:

1. This is the hearing of an application by Birmingham City Council to commit the Respondent Jerome Christie to prison for breach of the terms of a gang injunction, as it is colloquially called, granted by this court on 15^th of February 2016.
2. The allegation made against the Respondent is that on 16^th of March 2016 at about 5.30 p.m. he was seen on the corner of All Saints' Street and Lodge Road in breach of paragraph 2 of the injunction granted on 15^th of February. The allegation is denied by the Respondent.
3. The court has heard evidence from P.C. Jones and from Mr. Christie.
4. P.C. Jones's evidence was that she was a rear passenger, sitting behind the driver of a police car, when it turned right from Lodge Road into All Saints' Street at about 5.30 p.m. on 16^th of March when she saw a vehicle being driven, she says, by Mr. Christie, which was waiting in traffic in All Saints' Street at the junction with Lodge Road. Her initial view was through the front windscreen and then through a side tinted window.
5. Her evidence was that she identified the occupant of the other vehicle as being Mr. Christie by reference to various photographs which she had seen of Mr. Christie and she gave evidence that a distinguishing feature of Mr. Christie was, as she described it, his nose, which was, as I say, to her mind distinctive. Her view of the occupant of the other vehicle was for just short of three seconds and she had no doubt as to her identification of Mr. Christie.
6. Mr. Christie, for his part, denies that he was in the exclusion zone at the date and time identified. He denies that he was in the vehicle identified by P.C. Jones and in fact denies that he has ever driven that vehicle, which he says is owned by a friend, whom he identified as Omar. Somewhat surprisingly, given that this person was supposed to be a friend, he was unable to identify the surname of Omar. Nor was he able to explain, if he was not at the corner of Lodge Road and All Saints' Street on 16^th of March, where he was at the material time. This is notwithstanding the fact that he was brought before the court the day after the incident.
7. I caution myself that this being a committal application the Claimant must establish the breach to the criminal standard, that is to say, I need to be satisfied so as to be sure that Mr. Christie was indeed in a vehicle at the corner of All Saints' Street and Lodge Road on 16^th of March. I have been reminded by counsel for Mr. Christie of the salient guidance in the Turnbull case. He has submitted that this is a classic case of a fleeting glimpse and that whilst, no doubt, Miss Jones honestly believed that she identified Mr. Christie, she was in the circumstances mistaken as a result of the fleeting nature of the observation; the fact that she was in a moving vehicle, the fact that the vehicle in which she says Mr. Christie was an occupant had tinted side windows and that it was 5.30 in the afternoon and therefore approaching dusk.
8. Having heard both Mr. Christie give his evidence and Miss Jones I have no hesitation in accepting the evidence of Miss Jones, who seemed to me to be a witness of truth, doing her best to recall the events of 16^th of March. The same could not, in my judgment, be said of Mr. Christie. It is, to my mind, astounding that he was not able to put forward any explanation as to where he was on 16^th of March. I am satisfied so as to be sure, based on the identification evidence of Miss Jones, that Mr. Christie was indeed in a vehicle, stationary at the junction of All Saints' Street and Lodge Road on 16^th of March.
9. Mr. Christie has confirmed that he was aware of the terms of the injunction, aware that he should not have been in the exclusion zone, the breach is therefore made out to the criminal standard.
(Counsel addressed the court in relation to sentence)
10. I now turn to sentence. In addition to the breach of the interim injunction which I have found to the criminal standard this morning in respect of Mr. Christie's presence at the corner of All Saints' Street and Lodge Road on 16^th of March, I also have to sentence in respect of a further allegation of breach of the interim injunction. That allegation relates to Mr. Christie having been found to be in possession of a quantity of cannabis on 25^th of February 2016, an allegation which, to be fair to Mr. Christie, he has admitted.
11. Those, then, are the two breaches. They are the first breaches.
12. By way of mitigation I am told by Mr. Christie's counsel that he is some twenty-years-old, he is now living with his grandmother who supports him. Reference has been made to what would have been the likely sentence had the possession of cannabis allegation been made in the magistrates' court.
13. On the other hand, Mr. Christie, plainly, has something of a history when it comes to his relationship with the criminal courts. There are two breaches, the second of the two breaches took place whilst Mr. Christie was on bail following his arrest in respect of the first breach.
14. The court regards both breaches as serious matters, they demonstrate a disregard on Mr. Christie's part for the court and court orders and that disregard must be reflected in any sentence. However, I do take into account the matters raised by Mr. Christie's counsel in respect of the first breach. I impose a sentence of twenty-eight days to be suspended until the expiry of the current injunction. In respect of the second breach, bearing in mind that it took place whilst Mr. Christie was on bail, I impose a sentence of fifty-six days, again suspended on the same terms.
15. Mr. Christie should realise that if he is found to have breached the injunction again, then not only will he suffer whatever punishment is imposed in respect of that breach, but the two suspended sentences, which will be concurrent, will be activated. Both are suspended pending the expiry of the current injunction.

MISS RICHARDSON: Perhaps for clarity it could be to postpone(?) the injunction, any further injunction needs to be, given that we are not at the final injunction today.

16. All right, I think that is fair. Any applications in respect of costs?
(Counsel addressed the court in respect of costs)
17. The next issue is costs. Costs are in the discretion of the court. The usual order is the unsuccessful party should pay the successful party's costs and on that basis Birmingham City Council seeks its costs of pursuing the committal application. There is no objection, in principle, to a costs order and I am therefore asked to assess the council's costs.
18. The sum sought represents the court fee on the application and counsel's fees for today's hearing. I am satisfied that sums sought are reasonable and therefore order that Mr. Christie should pay the Claimant's costs of the application, summarily assessed at £760. That order is not to be enforced without leave of a district judge.
19. Mr. Robinson, no doubt you will impress upon Mr. Christie the importance of him complying with the injunction going forward. I trust we will not see him again. If we do he can expect a custodial sentence if found to be in breach.