Jersey Unreported Judgments

2001/27

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

31st January, 2001 

Representation of Plaintiff alleging breach of  non-molestation injunctions

            set out in her Order of Justice, confirmed by the Royal Court on

            19th January, 2001.  

Advocate D.C. Sowden for the Plaintiff

            Advocate R. Tremoceiro for the Defendant

judgment

the deputy bailiff:

1.        On the 10th January, 2001, an Order of Justice was served on the Defendant which contained a number of injunctions.   The material one for today's purposes is that it restrained him from approaching within 50 yards of the Plaintiff's place of residence.  The Plaintiff and the Defendant had had a relationship, but this had broken down in about October.   The interim injunctions were confirmed on 19th January by the Royal Court.

2.        The Defendant has admitted today to breaching the injunction on four separate occasions.  On 20th January after an incident in a local public house when the Plaintiff and the Defendant were both present, the Defendant went to the Plaintiff's flat and pressed the entry buzzer.   On 22nd January he again went to the Plaintiff's flat, pressed the door buzzer and when the Plaintiff answered it he said that he was not obsessed and just loved her, but the Plaintiff replaced the handset and he left.

3.        At 9.30 on 29th January, he went again to the premises.  On this occasion he gained access and there was a confrontation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant downstairs, as a result of which the Defendant lost his temper and threw the fuse for the Plaintiff's flat, and its casing onto the floor before leaving.  Later that day at one o'clock, he went back to the premises.  On this occasion he went up to the flat itself, and gained access; there was an argument between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the Defendant in due course left, but on the way out he pulled out the mail box for the Plaintiff's flat.

4.        It is clear, therefore, as he has admitted, that he breached the injunction on four separate occasions, and indeed he has now been charged with two counts of malicious damage in the Magistrate's Court relating to the damage to the fuse box, to the mail box, and the intercom system: I omitted to mention that he damaged the intercom system whilst in the flat on the second occasion on 29th January.

5.        Mr Tremoceiro has frankly admitted the breach on the Defendant's behalf, but has urged leniency.  He said that the Defendant has found it difficult to reconcile himself to the break-up of the relationship; he is taking anti-depressants and is under the care of his doctor.  He asserts secondly that the Plaintiff knew that the Defendant was going to be at the public house, where they met prior to the incident on 20th January, and that this should also be taken into account.   Thirdly he emphasises that the Defendant has for the first time found regular employment, which he has now held for approximately a year.  He is well thought of at his place of employment, and any lengthy period of imprisonment might result in the loss of that employment.   Finally, he has - as I say - fully accepted the breach and has on the instructions of the Defendant, assured the Court that no further breach will take place.

6.        We take all this into account, but nevertheless we cannot overlook repeated breaches of an injunction.  Orders of the Court must be obeyed.  However, in the circumstances we propose to pass a sentence of imprisonment which is such that the Defendant can be released on the morning of Friday, 2nd February, that is this coming Friday...He has been in custody since yesterday morning.  He will therefore not be able to work tomorrow, but he will be able to return to his employment on Friday.

7.        Stand up Crocker.  You must realise that on this occasion the Court has been lenient, but these orders and injunctions are to be obeyed, and if you breach them again you can expect to go to prison for a much longer period.

No Authorities.