WARNING: Reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.
JUDGE TUCKER:
- This is my decision in respect of a sentence for four breaches of an interim injunction, made by Deputy District Judge Crow on the 4 November 2024. That date was the date when the court heard an application made by the Claimant on notice to the Defendant for an injunction preventing the Defendant from attending any of the properties that they own, including those that they rent to others. The injunction was granted, and it was personally served on the Defendant on the 5 November 2024. On that day, he knew that he should not go to the Claimant's properties or be in touch with their staff.
- On the 7 November 2024, the Defendant was provided with, by way of personal service, a further witness statement in respect of the injunction application. On that day, he called one of the Defendant's housing officers. Those calls were recorded. The calls that the Defendant made were abusive and threatening. The Claimant's description of the calls as being extremely menacing and disturbing was, in my judgment, accurate.
- The Defendant's voice was recognisable in the calls. He stated in them that he had little regard, i.e., paid little attention to the injunction or to the police. I agree that that which could be understood by what the Defendant said was that that, "Court proceedings, social services and the police will not stop me." He said that he is a violent offender who has done most of his life in prison, and he said that he was a "fucking ex-gangster". He also used abusive and foul language towards the housing officer, calling her on two occasions a "horrible cunt", and that he would "seek revenge on her and her family", and, "put your family under threat".
- The Defendant also stated that he could get locked up, that he classed the housing officer as a grass - that, from what he has told me, was because he thinks that she informed social services about matters relevant to his then unborn child and his partner - and that there were consequences. He said, "I am willing to face the consequences of my actions. Are you?"
- I consider that those messages were deliberately designed to intimidate the housing officer and make her fearful.
- On the 8 November 2024, the Defendant was arrested and brought before the court, before District Judge Thomas. She remanded him on bail and listed the matter to be heard before me on the 5 December. On the 18 November 2024, the Defendant was served with the order that was made on that date.
- On the 2 December, in breach of the injunction again, the Defendant was found at the property and arrested. So, ahead of the date that Judge Thomas had fixed, the Defendant appeared before me. He said that he wanted to get legal advice. I adjourned the hearing until the Friday of that week, the 6th of December 2024.
- At the adjourned hearing, the Defendant admitted the breaches. He had by that stage secured some assistance of legal representation. An application was made that there should be a psychological assessment of the Defendant. I agreed to that application and adjourned sentence.
- The matter then was to be heard before me on the 12 February 2025 for sentence. On the 14 January 2025, however, the Defendant was arrested again for having again been at the Claimant housing association's property. He again admitted the breach.
- He was remanded into custody by His Honour Judge Grimshaw, and the matter was then listed before me to take place in Coventry on the 22 January 2024. On that day the Defendant did not attend. I made a number of enquiries, and only proceeded once I was satisfied that I had clear information that the Defendant had chosen not to attend. The matter remained listed, however, for me to consider sentence today.
- In between the hearing on the 22 January 2025 and today, the Defendant has parted company with his legal team. He represented himself today.
- Today, I hope, has been a useful hearing. The Defendant has now been in custody for some 29 days since his arrest on the 13 January 2025. In addition, a significant development has occurred; he and his partner are now the parents of a little girl, who was born on the 1 February. She is currently in foster care, and public law proceedings have been issued in Stoke Family Court.
- The Defendant has explained to me today that he has spent his life in prison. At different times during the hearing he has said several different things. Sometimes he said that he wants a better life, he wants things to be different now, that he hopes he can be a father in the way that he wants to be to his daughter. He has said that he wants to meet his daughter - he has not met her yet. He said that when he is in prison, he has to be different; he has been in prison a long time. But then, at other times, he said, "Just get it over with. Just send me to prison. I don't care."
- He told me that he has worked hard to get clean, he showed me a certificate. This is in respect of work he has completed at HMP Birmingham, called Cocaine Relapse. He has also showed me that he has an appointment with CGL. He also has showed me that he has an outpatients appointment at an NHS clinic, which, I think, is to see a psychologist.
DEFENDANT: It is a neurologist, your Honour.
JUDGE TUCKER: A neurologist. Thank you very much.
DEFENDANT: For my brain.
JUDGE TUCKER: You are right, yes. Neurologist.
DEFENDANT: For the way I correct myself and the way I keep having these ---
JUDGE TUCKER: Yes.
- The Defendant also told me at earlier hearings that he has been diagnosed with emotionally unstable personality disorder. That appears to be supported by some of the medical evidence that he has put before me today. He has explained that one of the difficulties with that is that he can become impulsive. Although he may have a plan of action as to how he intends to behave, that can quickly change when his emotions, in lay terms, get the better of him.
- To some extent, he does not accept that he has acted inappropriately in some ways. He considers that the housing officer threatened his partner. However, I am clear that what he said to the housing officer was threatening and bullying, and will have been very frightening for her.
DEFENDANT: So?
JUDGE TUCKER: In other words, I think he did that in order to frighten her. However, he has said sorry. I accept that there is some element of acknowledgement of wrong that the Defendant has done, and, importantly, some remorse for what he has done.
- On the two occasions that he was found at the properties which were owned by the housing association, there were different accounts between the police and the Defendant as to what occurred. The police stated that neither he, nor anyone else answered the door, that that they were required to force the door, go into the property and then found the Defendant hiding underneath a mattress. They stated that they were required to taser the Defendant during the arrest.
- The Defendant gives a different account of those matters, and complains about police conduct towards him. I have read and considered the complaint that the Defendant's partner made, in which the police consider that their actions were appropriate and not something about which a valid complaint could be made. I note also that they refer to body-worn footage in those accounts.
- I have not been required to determine what actually happened during the arrest. If the police's account is right, it is clear that the Claimant disregarded the court's order, was present at the property when he should not have been, and sought to hide from the police, and hide the fact that he was there. However, even if the Defendant's account is right, that he only visited the property to help his then heavily pregnant partner, that, in my judgment, is little mitigation. The rule imposed by the injunction is and was very clear: do not go to the Defendant's properties, no matter what.
DEFENDANT: See, I never did anything to ---
JUDGE TUCKER: Ah, stop.
DEFENDANT: OK.
JUDGE TUCKER: My turn to talk. That is the rule. No excuses, no nothing. That is the rule.
- In any event, on two occasions, the Defendant did - as he had said he would do in the threatening messages to the housing officer - completely disregarded the court order, and chose to act as he thought was best, rather than in accordance with the court's order.
- The first two breaches, in my judgment, were serious, towards the most serious of the three categories of harm. They threatened harm, they were deliberate. The second two, in my judgment, fall in the middle category.
- I am going to ask you now please to stand up.
DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.
JUDGE TUCKER: I sentence you for four breaches; the first two are the most serious. You deliberately put the housing officer in fear, both for herself and for others close to her. For those breaches, I sentence you to six months' custody. In relation to the other two breaches, I sentence you to one month's custody for each breach. They are to run consecutively with one another, but concurrently with the sentence for six months' custody. I accept that you gave guilty pleas for each of those breaches when they first came into court, but I give you very limited credit for that. The reason for that is you were faced with overwhelming evidence that that you had acted in breach of the injunction. Nonetheless, I give you some credit for it, and that is a reduction in the sentence I would otherwise have imposed of one week's custody.
- My initial view was that I should impose an immediate custodial sentence, and not suspend it. That was partly because of that which you have been recorded to have said, that you do not care what the police do, what the court says. It was also because of the number of breaches (arguably showing a determination to act in accordance with your stated disregard of the court order.) When I consider this matter before the hearing, I anticipated that I would impose an immediate custodial sentence of six months.
- However, I have listened carefully today to the submissions made, both by yourself and by counsel for the Claimant. Your daughter has now been born. My job in this court, as opposed to a criminal court, is first and foremost to ensure compliance with the Court's Order. There are two reasons why you now need to comply with this injunction. The first is that if you breach it again you are at risk of going to prison. A greater risk of doing so. You have told me you do not want that, you want a different life. You have also spent a period of time in prison to reflect, and, no doubt, that will have reminded you, as you have told me, that you do not want to be there.
DEFENDANT: I (inaudible) straight I agree, in February.
JUDGE TUCKER: But the second reason is different and is, I think, a significant matter for you. That is that you now have a daughter, although you have not yet met her. You and your partner need to understand just how serious the present situation is for you. If you get this wrong in the next six months, there is, in my judgment, a risk that the local authority may place that child away from you, and you will not have the opportunity to be involved in her life in any meaningful way.
- So, if you want a different life for yourself, if you want a different life for your daughter, you need to take a long, hard look in the mirror, and start changing the way that you act. There are difficulties. Yes, you have emotionally unstable personality disorder; yes, you have hardships that you must face. But they are not good excuses for acting in breach of this court's Order.
- You have explained to me how important a different life is for you.
- So, on the following conditions:
- You reside at the address that you have given me today
- You abide by an injunction, which, with your agreement, I now make as a final injunction, which will last until May 2026
- You do not get in touch with the housing association (you have no need to. If there is a problem with what they do, the tenant, your partner, can make a formal complaint.)
- You stay away from the Claimant's property.
On those conditions, I will suspend the sentence.
DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honour.
JUDGE TUCKER: However, trust me when I say that if you want to have a happy family life, as you say ---
DEFENDANT: I do.
JUDGE TUCKER: --- then you need to do certain things in addition to that. You need to stay clean. You need to go to CGL. They will see you all the time and help you. But you must make the first step. You do not go back to their properties, you do not pick a fight of conflict with others. You walk away, and you focus on your daughter.
DEFENDANT: Yes, OK.
JUDGE TUCKER: You go to the doctors appointments and you do the work that they say you have got to do. They cannot give you a magic pill, but they can help and support you. But you have got to take that step.
DEFENDANT: I am. I am trying.
JUDGE TUCKER: And then, then this may be a really hard thing: you are involved - you will be involved - in public law court proceedings. You can have a lawyer, the State will pay for you to have a lawyer, each of you. But you have got to change your attitude to social services.
DEFENDANT: You say that much ---
JUDGE TUCKER: Do not ---
DEFENDANT: I am sorry, your Honour.
JUDGE TUCKER: If you see your interaction with social services as a fight them, you are likely to have a more difficult time.
DEFENDANT: So what am I supposed to do?
JUDGE TUCKER: So you have got to ---
DEFENDANT: Let them take my kid?
JUDGE TUCKER: So, you have got to not see it as a fight against them, but an opportunity to work with them and get their support so that your family can live in the way that you would like.
DEFENDANT: Well I have been doing that, your Honour, and they will not work with me.
JUDGE TUCKER: So you need to do that better. And not come up with excuses, but to do that better. And you will have a legal team that can help you, but you need to stop thinking about fighting them, and thinking more about looking in the mirror and changing the things that you do which cause these problems. Not making excuses but changing the way that you behave.
- So, I am trusting you on this. I very nearly sent you to prison for six months. You have spoken at length and given a commitment to the Court. The reason I am not imposing an immediate custodial sentence is because I think that the order I have made (suspending it) is more likely to get you to comply with the injunction. If you breach this injunction again, it is not just that it is likely you will be going to prison, it is also about your daughter and your relationship. So that is why I am suspending it. Many judges might not have done, but I am on this occasion.
DEFENDANT: Yes, I do appreciate it.
JUDGE TUCKER: OK.
DEFENDANT: I want to show everybody that I just want to be a dad.
JUDGE TUCKER: So, to be a dad, you have got to look in the mirror and you have got to change the way that you are acting.
DEFENDANT: What can I - can I ask you a question, your Honour? What can I do with a social worker that is not willing to work with me?
JUDGE TUCKER: You just keep working with them, and doing the right things. Not fighting, not being abusive, not being aggressive, but working with a legal team and doing what they are asking you to do.
DEFENDANT: But what happens if it comes up later ---
JUDGE TUCKER: You just keep doing it.
DEFENDANT: --- the reason I come across the way I do is because I have had a brain injury?
JUDGE TUCKER: Then you say, "I am very sorry", and you start again.
DEFENDANT: OK. Thank you.
JUDGE TUCKER: OK, take a seat.
MR LAWAL: Your Honour, just one observation, the duration of the suspended term of imprisonment.
JUDGE TUCKER: Yes, quite right. I am proposing to suspend it for the duration of the injunction, please.
MR LAWAL: Thank you, your Honour.
---------------
This transcript has been approved by the Judge
