[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	English and Welsh Courts - Miscellaneous
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> English and Welsh Courts - Miscellaneous >> Sovereign Housing Association v Rutherford [2015] EW Misc B6 (CC) (12 May 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2015/B6.html Cite as: [2015] EW Misc B6 (CC)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COUNTY COURT
SITTING AT GLOUCESTER AND CHELTENHAM

		Kimbrose Way Gloucester GL1 2DE
		12th May 2015

JUDGMENT APPROVED BY THE COURT

DISTRICT JUDGE SINGLETON:

1. Sovereign Housing Association applied for an anti-social behaviour injunction against Mr Rutherford and this was granted on 20^th April 2014, with a power of arrest until 24^th April 2015 initially. At a hearing on 8^th May 2014, the injunction and the power of arrest were extended until 24^th April 2016. On 19^th June 2014, the defendant was arrested in the exclusion area imposed by the injunction. He admitted it. Because that was his first offence and because he had spent some time in the police cells, no penalty was imposed on that occasion but a warning was given.
2. However, a few days later, on 24^th June 2014, the defendant was arrested again for being in the exclusion area on 23^rd June 2014 and, at a hearing on 24^th June 2014, he was remanded in custody until 1^st July 2014. At the hearing on 1^st July 2014, the defendant admitted the breaches and a suspended sentence of 28 days was imposed and the suspension was to last until the conclusion of the injunction on 24^th April 2016. The next day, it turned out he was sentenced by the Magistrates' Court for other matters and he was not released from prison in connection with those other matters until about mid-November.
3. On 18^th December 2014, a hearing took place because it was alleged he had breached the injunction again, on 17^th December 2014, by entering the exclusion zone and he was, therefore, remanded in custody until 23^rd December 2014. On 23^rd December 2014, he was given prison sentences of 28 days for the breach on 17^th December 2014 and 28 days for activation of the suspended committal order and both of these sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
4. On 16^th February 2015, the claimant issued a committal application and this referred to two alleged breaches on 11^th February 2015 for entering the exclusion zone. At a hearing on 18^th March 2015, when the defendant failed to attend, the breaches were proved in his absence and an order was made adjourning the case for sentencing. Problems arose in relation to service of documents and, at a hearing on 20^th April 2015, I made an order for alternative service. Janice Bailey of the claimant organisation, she is the housing officer with them, has given evidence on oath today and she has also completed certificates of service. She has confirmed that she has complied with the order for service on 20^th April 2015 and has stated that the contents of the certificates of service, dated 27^th April 2015, are true. The defendant has failed to attend court again today.
5. This is the fourth set of breaches in respect of this particular defendant. The original injunction was imposed mainly because of harassment that the defendant had caused to a number of persons in the area which the defendant has been excluded from. Whilst no actual harassment has been caused to anybody, that the court is aware of, in respect of the recent breaches, there are aggravating factors in this particular case in that there is a history of disobedience on the part of the defendant. This is the fourth set of breaches over a period of ten months since the anti-social behaviour injunction was made and, during that period of ten months, he has been in prison for approximately five of them.
6. The current breaches were committed within two months of the previous breach and within approximately one month of being released from prison. There has been no guilty plea on the part of the defendant or no admission of the breaches on the part of the defendant. There has been no cooperation on the part of the defendant in connection with service of documents or attending court hearings in respect of the recent breaches. So I consider that there are a number of aggravating factors which tip this particular situation at the moment, in respect of the current breaches, into the middle bracket and, in those circumstances, I am going to impose a prison sentence of 42 days for each of the breaches and those sentences will run concurrently. The current breaches are that it is alleged that on 11^th February 2015, he entered the exclusion zone on two occasions on that date.
[Judgment ends]