[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	English and Welsh Courts - Miscellaneous
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> English and Welsh Courts - Miscellaneous >> Bristol City Council v Hibbs [2016] EW Misc B6 (CC) (05 February 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2016/B6.html Cite as: [2016] EW Misc B6 (CC)

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

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BRISTOL

		Magistrates Court Marlborough Street Bristol
		5th February 2016

Friday 5^th February 2016

BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL – v – TIMOTHY HIBBS JUDGMENT

DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE ANGLISS:

1. This is an application by Bristol City Council for a committal order arising from a breach of an injunction dated 19^th June 2015 under section 1 of the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The relevant terms of the injunction dated 19^th June are in particular against allowing more than three visitors to be in the named property at any one time and also an order against allowing the following people to enter the property, Tara Wilson date of birth 8^th May 1985, and Scott Collins whose date of birth is 19^th July 1982.
2. The application for committal is brought by Bristol City Council in the notice of application on the basis of three alleged breaches, those being that, firstly, on 3^rd November 2015 Mr Hibbs was arrested for breaching the injunction by having more than three visitors to the property and also by having Tara Wilson as one of those people at the property. The second is that on 1^st December Mr Hibbs was arrested for breaching the injunction again by having more than three visitors to the property and again by Tara Wilson being at the property. The third part of the application is a failure by Mr Hibbs to engage with the Bristol ROADS (Recovery Orientated Alcohol and Drugs Service) by 19^th July 2015 or up until today's date at all.
3. I have today before me Ms Begum who represents the council and Mr Hibbs has attended in person. I have also heard from Mr Palmer who appears as solicitor for Mr Hibbs. I was informed at the outset of this hearing that following discussions between the council and Mr Hibbs that the claimant and the defendant had agreed that in return for Mr Hibbs accepting and admitting the first two breaches, that being the breach alleged on 3^rd November and the breach alleged on 1^st December 2015, the council would not pursue the application based on the third of the alleged breaches, being the failure to engage with Bristol ROADS. In view of that, the court heard directly from Mr Hibbs under oath who admitted the first two offences, namely, that on 3^rd November 2015 he had more than three visitors and one of whom was Tara Wilson and also that on 1^st December 2015 again in breach of the injunction he had more than three visitors to the property again one of them being Tara Wilson. On that basis and by admission, I am satisfied that those first two breaches, which are the only two that are being pursued in relation to this application, have been made out beyond reasonable doubt. So there has been a breach of the injunction in that regard.
4. Having been satisfied that there has been a breach of the injunction, the next question and the next issue to determine is what is the appropriate punishment to impose as a result of those breaches of the injunction which I find to have taken place and which the defendant has admitted. I have been addressed by Ms Begum on behalf of the council and by Mr Palmer on behalf of Mr Hibbs and I have been provided with a copy of the Sentencing Council's guidelines for breach of the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Disorder Act. That sets out three effective tiers of seriousness with the sentencing guideline range for each.
5. Whilst the breaches themselves relate to having more than three visitors at any one time, and one of those being somebody prohibited by the injunction, nevertheless, the breaches have to be seen in the wider context including the reason why the injunction was made in the first place. Whilst caution needs to be, and is, exercised over how far the background evidence of the antisocial behaviour complained of determines what the appropriate sentence is in respect of the breaches that have taken place, it cannot, in my view, be totally ignored. Also what cannot be ignored is that there are two breaches in quick succession or two incidents; namely, on 3^rd November 2015 and 1^st December 2015 and that also in respect of those there are effectively a breach of two sections of the order on each occasion, namely, there being more than three visitors and also one of those people at the property being prohibited by the order.
6. The applicant, Bristol City Council, says that the offence puts it in the serious category but the defendant's representative says that it is in the lowest of the three categories. Whilst the offences that have been admitted in themselves do not relate to causing harassment, alarm or distress, there are clearly aggravating factors here and those aggravating factors particularly involve a history of disobedience of court orders. Not only are there two breaches in quick succession but also, albeit in relation to an earlier order, there was an earlier injunction in similar terms where there was a breach of that, too. For those reasons I am satisfied that in this case the threshold for a custodial sentence is reached.
7. The next question is whether any custodial sentence should be suspended. The defendant's solicitor says that it should because the defendant is now finally willing to engage with Bristol ROADS; however, I have to take into account that the order requiring that was made back in June 2015 and to date, even when the present application for committal was made, there appears to have been no attempt to engage with ROADS until a suggestion that that might happen today. I also am mindful that there has been a breach of an earlier suspended order and that does give concern in my mind over the effectiveness of a further suspended order.
8. The sentence that I impose should reflect not only punishment and the protection of local residents but also observance of the court orders and given the history in relation to the previous court orders, in view of the evidence and the disobedience of court orders, I find that it is appropriate in this case to impose an immediate custodial sentence of two weeks.