Torbay Council v Tia Bench & Anor

This is an unusual case where there has been so much concern about the vulnerability and lack of capacity with regards to YY that there have been decisions made and orders made in relation to Tia Bench.

Those issues were considered on 10 March this year when committal proceedings took place and the court found a number of breaches against her . Those are set out in the statement of case of 19 June and the court notes that they are extensive. As set out in paragraph 3, some six allegations were found proved.

At that hearing the contemnor, Ms Bench, was given the opportunity of seeking legal representation. Before the court went to sentence, Ms Bench was again given the opportunity of seeking legal representation. However, she said that she would prefer the court to carry on and sentence her and the court sentenced her to 14 days’ imprisonment suspended for a year.

The application today is for the court to activate that suspended sentence on the basis that the Local Authority allege that Ms Bench has breached the suspended sentence by associating with YY on three further occasions. In other words, she has breached the original injunction.

The court noted that this alleged breach on 20 March was for a protracted period of time. The evidence of Ms Bench, who has chosen to give evidence today, even though she has been reminded that she does not have to say anything in these proceedings, is that she was there for half an hour. Further I note that in any case, one can see that certainly, for several minutes, Ms Bench was present with YY.

The second alleged breach that the Local Authority relies on set out in the affidavit of Gemma Cripwell with regard to her observations on 30 May that she saw YY and Ms Bench walking towards herself near the arcade in Paignton. That is an allegation that Ms Bench has said that she did not initially accept or accepted it only the basis that this was not an intentional meet-up but that they just happened to meet up and were walking together. The case for the Local Authority is that if this is a breach, this is a breach for a short period of time.

I now go on to the third alleged breach . The Local Authority relies on the evidence of Kerry Ann Dunlop. Ms Dunlop is a self-employed assistant working with vulnerable adults . Her evidence is that on 6 June, she was looking at the recording video device that was placed on a home in Paignton, and she recognised on that device the presence of Ms Bench with YY. So, here again, over a month and a bit later, we have Ms Bench present with YY in obvious breach of the injunction.

The position today is that, of course, for a breach, the Local Authority have only got to prove a single breach. Here, Ms Bench accepts that she has breached the injunction on two occasions. The court has read her position statement and read the statement that she has filed. It has also read the position statement, filed on behalf of the second respondent, YY, by his legal representative.

The statement of Ms Bench deals with the initial allegations that the court dealt with and found as proved on 10 March. It is noted that with legal representation that Ms Bench accepts that the majority of those breaches which were found to have been proved are, in fact, correct. With regard to the alleged breaches for which she attends today, it is quite clear that she has accepted certainly two of those.

The position of Ms Bench is that she accepts that she should not have breached the injunction. She accepts that she is at risk of the suspended sentence being activated. She is making offers to the court. The offers to the court are on the one hand, for the court to change the current sentence and replace it with a sentence or a fine up to about £700 . Ms Bench claims that although she is on benefits, that over the next two months she would be able to pay £100 and thereafter, £200 to the balance of the amount.

An alternative has been put forward by her legal representative which is to extend the length of the term.

The court has listened to the evidence and has looked at the papers carefully. The starting point for this court is that there is no doubt that YY is a highly vulnerable individual who does not have the capacity to make decisions about whom he has contact with. Therefore, he needs to be protected from himself. The evidence of Ms Bench is, effectively, that it is YY who has sought her out and that she has done her best to avoid him.

I do not accept that evidence. There seems to be no difference in her actions and behaviour towards him when considering these alleged breaches from when the court was considering her actions towards him from December 2022 onwards.

The court notes that as this is a committal hearing, there has been no compulsion on Ms Bench to effectively say anything. It is for the Local Authority to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she is in breach. However she has given evidence and I have to say with her help, the Local Authority have proved beyond reasonable doubt that breaches 1 and 3 are absolutely proved.

I also accept, having heard the evidence, that although for a shorter period of time, the Local Authority have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the second breach is also proved.

This court is very much aware of the vulnerability of YY, and Ms Bench has done her best to inform the court of her own vulnerability. The court has been told that she will do anything to avoid going into prison and having a sentence activated. The court understands that her own evidence is that she has a borderline personality disorder which has not helped her react appropriately to the injunction and to the suspended sentence.

The court recalls at the time of sentencing her on 10^th March, that Ms Bench was very reassuring to the court that she would not spend now at any time with YY.

This court has now seen her on two occasions and this court does recognise that there has been a difference in her presentation today. It may well be that these are crocodile tears. It may well be that she is trying to convince the court of the fact that she will now turn over a new leaf. However, having heard evidence and having seen her, this court today is prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt.

With regard to the original sentence, the court is now going to re-sentence as from today. With regard to the original breaches, the court sentence is 14 days suspended for 12 months from today. With regard to the three breaches the court has found proved today, the court adds a further seven days. Therefore, the sentence is 21 days suspended for 12 months.

I want Ms Bench to be absolutely clear that if she, in any way, associates with YY and continues to breach the injunction which will continue, that it is almost inevitable that she will now go to prison and the sentence will be activated. I am prepared to give her a second chance, but I want her to be absolutely clear that it is most unlikely that there will be a third chance.

Therefore, on that basis, I re-sentence her for a total of 21 days suspended for 12 months.