[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> Birmingham City Council v Travers [2016] EWFC B19 (07 April 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2016/B19.html Cite as: [2016] EWFC B19

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

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BIRMINGHAM

		The Priory Courts 33 Bull Street Birmingham B4 6DS
		7th April 2016

HIS HONOUR JUDGE McKENNA:

1. This is the hearing of an application by Birmingham City Council to commit Kirt Travers to prison for breach of the terms of what is colloquially referred to as a gang injunction, made against him on 23^rd of September 2015, pursuant to sections 34, 35 and 36 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009, as amended.
2. The particular provision was an order to the effect that Mr. Travers was not to enter the area coloured in orange on a map annexed to the order, except (a) he may enter the area hatched in black on the map attached, but not associate in that area with more than two people, not including members of his family.
3. The allegation made against him is that on 18^th of February 2016 at 16.35 hours he was identified as being on Crosby Close in Birmingham with more than two persons, not being members of his family, in breach of that provision.
4. Mr. Travers admits that he was in breach in the way alleged by Birmingham City Council.
5. This is not the first occasion on which he has breached the terms of the injunction. There are two previous breaches which were the subject of suspended prison sentences of four weeks and two weeks respectively as a result of the order His Honour Judge Rowland made on 24^th of November 2015 and relating to two incidents.
6. There is little guidance in terms of appropriate penalties in these cases. I have been referred by counsel for Mr. Travers to some guidance provided to magistrates in respect of a different regime. I am asked and I do take into account the fact that Mr. Travers has admitted the breach, but I also have to take into account that this is the third occasion on which he has breached the terms of the injunction, an injunction the terms of which he was well aware and the continued breaches demonstrate to my mind an unfortunate attitude on the part of Mr. Travers to court orders. They are there to be obeyed. He can have been in no doubt as a result of the last occasion on which he attended in respect of a breach what the likely sentence would be if there was a repetition. There has been a repetition. Whilst there was no harassment, (the allegation was merely being in a place where he should not have been with individuals) the fact of the matter is that he knew he should not have been associating with individuals who were not members of his family..
7. Nothing less than a custodial sentence, it seems to me, is appropriate, given that this is the third occasion. Taking into account all the circumstances and the mitigation, such as it is that has been put forward, I sentence Mr. Travers to a term of imprisonment of twenty-eight days of which I expect he will serve fourteen days.
8. The suspended sentences in respect of the two previous occasions I do not activate at this time. They remain on the court file in the hope that that will provide some incentive to comply with the terms of the order going forward.
9. Mr. Travers should be in no doubt that if he is found to be in breach again he will face a more significant immediate custodial sentence in respect of that breach plus the activating of the currently suspended sentences, so twenty-eight days.
costs
10. I will make a costs order but it is to be suspended on the usual terms.