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 >> Cheshire West and Chester Council v Montana [2017] EW Misc B3 (CC) (09 February 2017)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2017/3.html
Cite as: [2017] EW Misc B3 (CC)
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Little St John Street Chester CH1 1SN |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
| CHESHIRE WEST AND CHESTER COUNCIL | Claimant | |
| -and- | ||
| AMANDA MONTANA | Defendant |
____________________
Posib Ltd, St Mary's Chambers, 87 High Street, Mold, Flintshire, CH7 1BQ
Official Transcribers to Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service
DX26560 MOLD
Tel: 01352 757273
translation@posib.co.uk www.posib.co.uk
For the Claimant: Miss Ellis
For the Defendant: Mr G Willock
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- Would Amanda Montana please stand up?
- With the benefit of professional advice, you have agreed a course of action today which I say was very sensible of you. The evidence had stacked up. I have read this and I had to hear the sworn evidence but I think your admission is sensible and practical because clearly there are issues.
- I go further than that because on the papers there was also a second statement from one the Claimant's witnesses in which there is something of a history of this going back to 2008 in another property. So you have got a track record on this sort of misconduct.
- On this occasion, on reflection of all the evidence, I took a view that an immediate custodial sentence for the breach of the original order would not be appropriate. In part governed by the age of your daughter, because although she could live with her father nevertheless that would have an impact on her life, and in part on the fact that I was dealing (in terms of the imprisonment) on two allegations only which have been admitted.
- It is, as counsel rightly says, generally the guidance that on the first breach it is not immediate custodial sentence, but you were within a whisker of it, I have to tell you.
- Accordingly, I have accepted that view and I am going to impose a sentence of twenty-eight days imprisonment which will be suspended for a period of twelve months. The injunction will last two years but that suspended sentence will last twelve months.
- The object is to encourage you to continue your current good behaviour, but you must be aware that if there are any other complaints made which are proved to this Court (whether it is me or another judge) you will serve twenty-eight days immediately for that breach and you will be sentenced for the second breach as well. You are likely then to receive a much more substantial sentence. That is how close you are to having your life disrupted by imprisonment. I do not suppose that is what you want.
- The smoking of cannabis is in these terms. It is actually against the law in any event. I know that it is casually treated but it is a breach of the law. You could be prosecuted by the Police in addition for that, for allowing it to happen. It is grounds for you to have to give up possession of your house. That is now not going to be part of it unless it happens again. So these things are very important because the next time round, not only will you go to prison there is a very real prospect of you losing your home. If that is what you want, fine. If you do not want that, follow the injunction.
- Alright, do you understand all that? Alright, thank you very much, please sit down.
- The sentence is twenty-eight days imprisonment, suspended for twelve months. The injunctive order will last for two years.
JUDGMENT
9th February 2017
DISTRICT JUDGE NEWMAN:
End of judgment