English and Welsh Courts - Miscellaneous

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BRISTOL

		Civil and Justice Centre 2 Redcliff Street Bristol
		19th April 2017

Wednesday 19^th April 2017

BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL – v – ADRIAN HILL JUDGMENT

DISTRICT JUDGE WATSON:

1. In order to try to stop Mr Adrian Hill from begging, and on the application of Bristol City Council, the court made an order on 24^th April 2015 forbidding Mr Hill from begging in the city of Bristol and prohibiting him from entering two smaller parts of the city centre where he had been known habitually to beg. The reason for Mr Hill's begging is to support his crack cocaine and heroin habits.
2. Unfortunately Mr Hill swiftly broke that order and in July 2015 was sent to prison for a period of six weeks for 30 breaches. On his release Mr Hill broke the order again and in September 2015 was sent to prison for a total period of three months for a further 29 breaches and on his release, again he broke the order and in December 2015 was sent to prison for a period four months, this time for 25 further breaches.
3. Within days of Mr Hill's release from that further spell in prison he committed further breaches of the April 2015 order, and on 3^rd March 2016 he came before his Honour Judge Rutherford having broken the order seven times. Judge Rutherford decided to adjourn sentence to see if Mr Hill would avail himself of the help the city council were offering him but within two hours of being released on bail Mr Hill broke the injunction again and so on 11^th March 2016 Judge Rutherford sentenced Mr Hill to a further term of imprisonment of six months, despairing of Mr Hill's inability to accept help but stressing the importance of obeying the court's order and warning Mr Hill of the seriousness of continued breaches. Judge Rutherford also extended the original order until the end of April 2017, and that order was served on Mr Hill while he was in prison.
4. On Mr Hill's release in the summer of 2016 unfortunately he again continued to break the court's order. The council had, nonetheless, attempted to offer Mr Hill help, and their efforts, described in the judgment of District Judge Field delivered on 25^th November 2016, included offers of accommodation, financial help and referrals to support agencies. But Mr Hill was unwilling to accept these offers of help and continued breaking the court's order, and so District Judge Field sentenced Mr Hill to a further period totalling six months in prison.
5. Mr Hill was released from that sentence on 23^rd February this year. Again the city council had made arrangements to organise accommodation for Mr Hill and to provide him with opiate substitute prescriptions from the prescribing team at a local police station, but within four days of his release Mr Hill was once again breaking the order. On 29 occasions he was seen in the areas from which he had been excluded - on 14 separate days - and on four of those occasions he was seen to be begging. The four occasions are 8^th March at 0850 in the morning, 17^th March at 0929 in the morning, the same day at 1044 in the morning and 20^th March at eleven o'clock in the morning. (I appreciate that two of those occasions are on the same day and within an hour and a half of each other so that may be why Mr Hill thought it was only three occasions.)
6. Today, as on previous occasions, Mr Hill has been represented by Mr Ray. Mr Ray had been sent all the evidence relied on by Bristol City Council ahead of today's hearing, including the two statements of Mr Hawkridge, a co-ordinator of the council's Streetwise project which attempts to tackle the problem of begging in Bristol.
7. Mr Hill was first before the court on these fresh 29 breaches on 30^th March when District Judge Cronin adjourned the matter so that Mr Hill could be represented by Mr Ray, Mr Ray not being at court on that occasion. Mr Hawkridge was in court on that day however. And Mr Hill had told the judge that he did not want to go to prison and would comply with the order. So Mr Hawkridge spoke with Mr Hill and they agreed to meet the following morning to discuss what help could be arranged for him, such as help with accommodation and help with the heroin substitute prescription. Mr Hill was released on bail so he could attend that meeting. Mr Hill did not attend that meeting. Neither did he start obeying the order, because one of the breaches occurred after that date. And neither did Mr Hill attend the adjourned hearing to which he had been bailed.
8. The adjourned hearing took place on 7^th April before his Honour Judge Rutherford but, as I say, although Mr Ray was present, the defendant failed to attend and, accordingly, Judge Rutherford issued a warrant for Mr Hill's arrest and that is how we all come to be here in court today.
9. Mr Ray tells me that Mr Hill admits all 29 breaches. Mr Ray tells me that he has discussed with Mr Hill what might be done to encourage him to obey the order and to break the cycle of breaches and imprisonment and release followed by more breaches and yet another prison sentence. Although Mr Hill acknowledges that help is available, he does not want to accept it. Mr Hill accepts that Mr Hawkridge offered him help on 30^th March and that he failed to meet up with Mr Hawkridge the following morning. Mr Hill's explanation is that he was "unavailable", although Mr Hill has declined to explain why he was unavailable.
10. Mr Ray tells me that there are no health issues here. The drugs which Mr Hill takes are consumed orally and not injected; Mr Hill reports no symptoms of depression or psychosis and no suicidal inclinations and Mr Ray does not ask nor does Mr Hill ask for any reports of any kind. Mr Ray concluded his mitigation this morning saying that he was at a loss to present a positive picture, and he acknowledged that he was unable to suggest any alternative to another prison sentence.
11. In the circumstances, as here, where Mr Hill refuses all offers of help and continues to break the court's order, the court is indeed left with no alternative. This is now the sixth occasion when Mr Hill has been before the court for multiple breaches of the same order.
12. Orders of the court have to be obeyed. Mr Hill must understand the seriousness of breaking the court's order and if Mr Hill does not appreciate that, then it is important, nonetheless, that others who are subject to similar orders should understand the seriousness of breaking court orders. I see no alternative here but to impose a further prison sentence for these 29 breaches.
13. There will be a sentence of six months' imprisonment on each of them to run concurrently, that is, six months in total. I can only hope that during his time in prison Mr Hill avails himself of the help offered to him, help which he seems unable to accept when at liberty, and that such help and his experience in prison, his sixth, will encourage him to obey the terms of this order on his release.
14. This judgment should be transcribed at public expense and sent to the places that it needs to be sent to make it a public judgment.