[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	English and Welsh Courts - Miscellaneous
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> English and Welsh Courts - Miscellaneous >> Birmingham City Council v Fellows [2017] EW Misc 7 (CC) (20 April 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2017/7.html Cite as: [2017] EW Misc 7 (CC)

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

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BIRMINGHAM

		The Priory Courts 33 Bull Street Birmingham B4 6DS
		20th April 2017

HIS HONOUR JUDGE RAWLINGS:

1. I formally find that, based upon the admission of Mr. Fellows that he has breached this order by entering the exclusion zone on 2^nd of March 2017, that I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that that breach of the order has occurred. The council is not proceeding with the allegation that whilst in that area he hit his daughter and therefore the sanction that I impose will be based upon that breach alone and that is being within the exclusion area on 2^nd of March 2017 without (if I can put it this way) any complications or any aggressive or inappropriate behaviour amounting to an exacerbation of that breach.
2. I note that there have been a large number of occasions upon which Mr. Fellows has breached the order before and, in particular, that District Judge Warner on 16^th of January 2015 sentenced the Defendant to two-months' imprisonment. That on 19^th of March 2015 His Honour Judge Oliver-Jones, Q.C. imposed a suspended sentence of three-months on that day. Two-months later on 21^st of May 2015 His Honour Judge Worster had to deal with further breaches, which were admitted to have been committed on 13^th of May of that year. Judge Worster activated the suspended sentence and imposed a further ninety days of imprisonment. On 14^th of August 2015 District Judge Shorthose imposed a sentence of fifty-four days of immediate custody following a further breach. There were four further breaches admitted in December of 2015 which led to the imposition of a sentence by Her Honour Judge Wall in April of 2016 of some 150 days, after making allowance for an admission on that occasion.
3. It does appear, and I am not given any reason for this, that there has been a gap between breaches, from the breaches that occurred in December of 2015 up until this breach was admitted to have occurred on 2^nd of March 2017. I am not told, for example, that Mr. Fellows was in jail or otherwise was, effectively preventing him from breaching the terms of the order and I approach the matter therefore on the basis that there has been a period of compliance for something over a year in relation to the terms of the order which is certainly a better pattern of behaviour than was occurring in 2015 when there were repeated breaches of the injunction. I take that into account. I take into account also the fact that there has been an admission on this occasion of breach by being in the exclusion area, nonetheless, having taken into account the various breaches, to which I have already referred, I must conclude that this was a deliberate breach again of the injunction. Mr Fellows would be well acquainted, given his previous breaches, with what he must not do and he has deliberately breached the order yet again.
4. Given the significant number of previous breaches and that, from what Ms Purches tells me it is unlikely that Mr Fellows could afford to pay a fine it appears to me that the threshold for the imposition of a custodial sentence has been crossed. Given the number of occasions on which both suspended and immediate custodial sentences have been imposed before, in spite of which Mr Fellows has continued to breach the order, I do not consider that imposing a suspended order, in order to try to ensure future compliance with the order is appropriate (this has not worked in the past). Taking those matters into account, and noting that there is no period of suspended sentence to be activated, I consider that the appropriate period of imprisonment would be sixty days to take effect on Mr. Fellows release from prison.
5. I have to leave it as vague as that because I do not know precisely when that release will take place or indeed what prison he is in.

MS PURCHES: If it helps your Honour, I am told he is HMP Hewell, although that may well change by the time his release date arrives.

6. Yes, possibly. So that is the sanction that I impose. Sixty days of imprisonment to take effect on Mr. Fellows release from prison.
(Counsel addressed the court re the question of costs.)
7. I will make an order that the Defendant pay a contribution towards the Claimant's costs of £400, not to be enforced without further order of the court. The first order, as I indicated, is to impose an immediate prison sentence of sixty days, but to take effect upon Mr. Fellows release from prison.