WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWCC 25
Case No. L00DN296
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT SHEFFIELD
Courtroom No. 11
The Law Courts
50 West Bar
Sheffield
S3 8PH
Monday, 28th April 2025
Before:
HIS HONOUR JUDGE BADDELEY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B E T W E E N:
CITY OF DONCASTER COUNCIL
and
IRVINE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Transcript of a recording by Acolad UK Ltd
291-299 Borough High Street, London SE1 1JG
Tel: 020 7269 0370
legal@ubiqus.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MR M CUNDY appeared on behalf of the Claimant
NO APPEARANCE by or on behalf of the Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT (Approved)
HHJ BADDELEY:
1. This is an application for a committal order against Daniel Irvine for breaching an antisocial behaviour injunction that was made on 24 June 2024. The order is to last until 23 June 2026.
2. I am satisfied on the evidence that that order was served on the defendant on 21 July 2024.
3. On 21 October 2024, I dealt with a previous committal hearing to consider breaches of that injunction by Mr Irvine. On that occasion, I was dealing with three breaches on 11 September, 11 October and 15 October 2024. I found the breaches proved and I sentenced Mr Irvine to six weeks' imprisonment.
4. The matter before me today arises out of an incident on Sunday, 2 February 2025, when Mr Irvine was arrested again at 124 Elmhurst Road, Thorne. He was brought before me on the following day, on Monday, 3 February 2025, and I bailed him to attend on 20 February 2025. I handed him the standard leaflet that we have in this court explaining how he could obtain legal advice, and I explained to him his right to silence.
5. A formal application for contempt in form N600 was filed on 5 February 2025. Unfortunately, that application had not been served prior to the hearing on 20 February, so that hearing was adjourned until today.
6. Mr Irvine was, I am told, arrested again at 124 Elmhurst Road on 8 April 2025. There is no application for committal in respect of that incident. It is not relevant for the purposes of the order I make today, save by way of background, because Mr Irvine has been in custody since that incident. He was arrested on suspicion of burglary and remains at HMP Nottingham on remand.
7. I have a certificate of service confirming that Mr Irvine was served with the papers in this case and notice of today's hearing, at HMP Nottingham on 17 April 2025. There is a statement signed by Steven Sweetin confirming service. I am satisfied that Mr Irvine is aware of today's hearing. I gave him permission to attend from prison by video link by order dated 23 April 2025, and I have heard from a prison officer this afternoon who was advised us that Mr Irvine refused to come to the video hearing suite, saying that he was not well enough. There is no medical evidence or, indeed, any evidence to support that assertion, and I decided at the beginning of this hearing to proceed.
8. I have heard evidence this afternoon from Mr Steven Young, formerly Police Constable Steven Young, who confirmed his affidavit dated 5 February 2025 in which he says that he found Danny Irvine at the property and arrested him on suspicion of burglary on 2 February 2024. Mr Irvine is not here to cross-examine Mr Young. I asked him questions around the date he left the police. He is now, he tells me, working for Doncaster Council, having started work recently and having left the police force on 15 March 2025.
9. I am satisfied to the criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt, that Mr Irvine was present in the property at 124 Elmhurst Road on 2 February 2025. That puts him in breach of the 24 June 2024 order which prevented him being within a marked area that included 124 Elmhurst Road. It is absolutely clear to me that Mr Irvine was aware of that injunction and that it had been served on him. Indeed, I sentenced him for breaching that order in October 2024.
10. In terms of sentence, I note the injunction was granted because of a long history of Mr Irvine abusing his grandmother, Carol Hellewell. Carol Hellewell was and, I understand, still is the tenant at 124 Elmhurst Road in Thorne. As I noted when sentencing Mr Irvine in October 2024, he was convicted of causing criminal damage at Mrs Hellewell's home and given a 12-month restraining order on 6 October 2017. He was arrested twice for breaching that order in 2018. He was prosecuted for assaulting Mrs Hellewell and for coercive control in 2021, but not convicted for those offences. Instead, he was given a sentence of 10 months' imprisonment for perverting the course of justice by causing Mrs Hellewell to retract her statement.
11. Mr Irvine was also given a three-year restraining order on 18 March 2021 under section 5(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. That order prohibited him from contacting or communicating with his grandmother by any means. He received three separate prison sentences for breaching that restraining order. The restraining order expired in March 2024.
12. Mr Irvine continued to go to the property. That is why I sentenced him to six weeks in prison on 21 October 2024. On each of the three relevant dates, that is 11 September 2024, 11 October 2024 and 15 October 2024, he was arrested at 124 Elmhurst Road.
13. I remind myself of what was said in Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631, that the objectives of sentencing for breach of an injunction made by a civil court are firstly, to ensure compliance with the order; secondly, punishment; and thirdly, rehabilitation. I must consider whether a fine would be a sufficient penalty and, if the contempt is so serious that only a custodial penalty will suffice, the Court must impose the shortest period of imprisonment which properly reflects the seriousness of the contempt.
14. There is no mitigation in this case as Mr Irvine has not attended the hearing. I do need to consider whether to suspend any sentence of imprisonment. Applying the Civil Justice Council guidelines that were approved by the Court in Lovett, I must give consideration to the degree of harm and the degree of culpability. I said, when sentencing Mr Irvine in September 2024, that this was a high culpability case because of the persistent serious breaches of the injunction. It remains, in my judgment, a high culpability case today. The harm is, however, Category 3, the lowest level. Mrs Hellewell is no longer at the property. There is no evidence that she has been harmed by Mr Irvine's breach of the injunction on 2 February 2025. Mrs Hellewell is, I understand, in a care home.
15. Accordingly, applying the guidance, the starting point is one month imprisonment with a category range of adjourned consideration to three months. I consider that the appropriate sentence, in this case, is at the top of that bracket, three months. I previously sentenced Mr Irvine to six weeks. In my judgment, his further breach requires a longer sentence to ensure his compliance with the order. I consider it is not appropriate for me to suspend the sentence given the multiple breaches of this order and the fact that Mr Irvine breached the order so soon after I sent him to prison in October.
16. The sentence is 13 weeks, which is 91 days. Mr Irvine has spent one day in custody. I double the one day to reflect the fact that he will be released halfway through his sentence. Accordingly, the total sentence is 89 days.
End of Judgment.