Sheffield City Council v Kerry Fletcher

This is a sentencing decision in the case of Kerry Fletcher. The claimant is Sheffield City Council, who properly brought injunction proceedings against her in mid-2024. An injunction was imposed with a penal notice on 18 June 2024. There is a long history of the proceedings subsequent to that. There are a number of breaches of the injunction that was imposed in 2024. They were recorded in my previous order of 30 April 2025, namely, being present in certain roads in the Sheffield area that she was prohibited from going into.

As Mr Tyson has reminded me, when the matter last came before me on 30 April I adjourned sentencing Ms Fletcher because there appeared to have been no breaches of the original injunction order during 2025. Ms Fletcher does have a series of difficulties with her life and has had various prison sentences. I understand she is currently in prison. Because she is in prison, I can be fairly confident that the notice of hearing has come to her attention. This was sent by first-class post to the institution concerned. Also, I consider it appropriate to take into account, the likely sentence that is going to be imposed, when deciding whether to adjourn the application.

Ms Fletcher cooperated on the last occasion she attended court. In particular, she admitted the breaches, which have been recorded. There are not alleged to have been any further incidents. Therefore, whilst it is unfortunate that she is not here today, she has been given notice of today’s sentencing hearing and it is desirable to move on to sentence.

Mr Tyson has reminded me of the custody threshold that was set out in the case of Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631, and the factors to take into account in deciding whether to impose a custodial sentence. These include, the extent of the prevalence of the breaches, the extent of compliance with court orders subsequent to the breaches being brought to the Court’s attention and the extent to which it can be asserted that the defendant is likely to comply with the injunction in the future. In addition, the injunction still has some weeks to run.

I am satisfied, having considered the circumstances of the case, that because there have been no recent breaches, and certainly nothing since the last hearing, it is appropriate to take a lenient course. To follow the logic of my previous order, I have decided to impose no separate or additional penalty for her breaches of the injunction. The allegations of harassment, essentially, are side issues in this case. The fundamental problem was Ms Fletcher’s entry into a prohibited zone. Since the imposition of the injunction she appears to have desisted from going into the area concerned, there being no further incidents since she appeared in court on 30^th April. I do not think it would be right to consider sending her to custody, as I do not consider the custody threshold to be met. The appropriate penalty is to make no separate penalty for the breaches of the injunction order.