Scott & Anor v Easthorpe & Anor

LORD JUSTICE POTTER: This is the appeal of Mr Graham Easthope against the order of His Honour Judge Altman dated 28 August 2003 in the Milton Keynes County Court committing the appellant to prison for three months for assault on an officer of the court, Carole Cassidy, whilst in the execution of her duty as a court bailiff on 4 August 2003.

Proceedings were brought pursuant to a summons issued by Miss Cassidy under the procedure provided for in CCR 34 r.1 in respect of an alleged offence under section 14 of the County Courts Act 1984, which provides in subsection (1) that:

Thus it can be seen that the judge imposed the maximum permissible sentence in respect of the assault in question. Since proceedings under this section in relation to an assault on a bailiff are in the nature of proceedings for contempt of court (see Southam v Smout [1964] 1 QB 308), an appeal lies to this court as of right under the Administration of Justice Act 1960, section 13.

It was not in dispute before the judge in the course of the hearing, which took place on 28 August 2003, that the form of the assault was the throwing of a stone by Mr Easthope at Miss Cassidy's car as she proceeded to drive off from outside his house at Akeley, Robeson Place, Crown Hill, Milton Keynes, having been served with papers requiring his attendance at the county court in relation to injunction proceedings brought against him.

There was considerable dispute between Mr Easthope and his partner, Miss Fuller who lived with him at that address, on the one hand and Miss Cassidy on the other as to the events immediately preceding that assault. However, the judge, as he was entitled to do, accepted the evidence of Miss Cassidy as to the relevant events. In particular he rejected the assertion by Mr Easthope that he had earlier been assaulted, or feared assault upon himself, by Miss Cassidy and was in any event ignorant of her identity or the purpose for her attendance at his premises.

On the basis of Miss Cassidy's evidence, the brief facts are as follows. She knocked on Mr Easthope's door, which he answered wearing nothing but red shorts. She asked him if he was Mr Easthope to which he replied, "Who wants to know?" She replied that she was a bailiff from the county court upon which he became evasive and aggressive in his manner and said that he was not Mr Easthope. The voice of a lady, plainly Miss Fuller, then shouted behind the door that she should go away. Miss Cassidy then asked if Miss Fuller was there. She, in turn, put her head round the door and became aggressive in manner.

Miss Cassidy tried to hand the papers to Mr Easthope, but Miss Fuller shouted that it would all be dealt with on Friday and she, Miss Cassidy, should get in touch with her solicitor. As the pair began to shut the door, Miss Cassidy threw the relevant papers at their feet, only to have them thrown out through the door without either Mr Easthope or Miss Fuller looking at them.

Miss Cassidy tried to put the papers through the letter box which was held shut against her as Miss Fuller was shouting abuse at her. Miss Cassidy left the papers hanging out of the letter box, stating that there was a hearing which they must attend on Wednesday. She then left and got into her car. As she was putting her seatbelt on, she became aware that Mr Easthope had come out of the property, and as she began to drive off she could see him picking something up from the ground. The next she knew was that a large stone which he had thrown (she described it as the size of a satsuma) struck her car. It hit the bonnet of her car, made two dents and gouged the paint on the bonnet. Fortunately, the stone did not go through the driver's window of her car which was open, nor did it strike her personally. She sought to drive away quickly as she could still see Mr Easthope raising his arms and shouting abuse. She was plainly put in fear of injury by the launching of the stone because she said that, as she drove away, she thought, "My goodness all the windows were open, it could have hit me on the head."

We have a transcript of the proceedings. Having recited the rival versions of events, the judge found the offence proved, expressing his findings on the lines I have mentioned. He then heard submissions as to the appropriate penalty. It is not clear that the judge was aware, and certainly counsel who appeared below did not point out, that the maximum sentence for the assault offence was one of three months' imprisonment as provided under S.14 of the 1984 Act.

Before pronouncing upon sentence, the judge said that he took into account the matters in favour of the appellant which he listed as his expression of regret, the fact that the assault was essentially one of recklessness rather than any deliberate attempt to strike or injure Miss Cassidy, that no personal injury resulted, that Miss Cassidy was not put in fear for long and that the appellant had no previous convictions for any criminal offence. Nonetheless, the judge said that he could not underestimate the seriousness of this kind of assault, given in particular that officers of the court went about their business without any weapon by way of protection and unaccompanied. In those circumstances he stated that the law required the protection of such officers in order to safeguard the administration of justice. The stone was thrown in anger and in order to discourage Miss Cassidy from serving the papers. In those circumstances a financial penalty was not appropriate and the appropriate sentence was one of three months' imprisonment.

Counsel for the appellant, Mr Pearson, who did not appear below, has acknowledged the importance of protection for the court's officers and that the necessity to safeguard the administration of justice is a justifiable reason for imposing a penalty for an assault of this kind more severe than would be appropriate in an ordinary criminal case. Thus he recognises that, generally speaking, a custodial sentence of some kind will be appropriate. However, he submits that on any view a sentence of three months (ie the maximum sentence available) for an assault which involved no injury to, or physical contact with, the officer concerned was excessive. I agree. I consider the judge was right to take a serious view of the case, involving as it did a reckless and dangerous act on the part of the appellant. However, having emphasised the mitigating features and the previous good character of the appellant, I also consider that the judge imposed a penalty which was excessive.

I do not say that a short period of imprisonment was unmerited. It seems to me clear that a period of custody, albeit a short period in the case of a relatively trivial assault, will almost always be appropriate in order to mark the disapproval of the court in respect of an assault upon its officers and for the other reasons which the judge himself articulated. I consider that a period of 21 days' imprisonment would have been a sufficient sentence in this case.

Accordingly, I would quash the sentence of three months' imprisonment imposed and substitute a sentence of 21 days' imprisonment, which will enable the appellant to be released immediately.

LORD JUSTICE TUCKEY: I agree.