Mitton & Ors v Benefield & Anor

High Ridge is a modern residential development near Ashford, Kent. It is a cul-de-sac consisting of a dozen properties. Ten of them appear to be detached. High Ridge takes access via Imperial Way from Singleton Hill. The topography and, no doubt, the highway layout dictated that High Ridge should be constituted by a T shape with the bar on top of the T containing 8 of the 12 High Ridge houses.

No.9 High Ridge is occupied by the Claimants. No.2 High Ridge, which is directly opposite No.9, is occupied by the Defendants and their children. These two houses sit more or less in the middle of the 8 houses constituting the bar of the T. They are placed just at the point where the bar of the T, to continue the description by reference to the letter, takes over from the column of the T. The width of High Ridge at that point and hence the gap between the two houses enables two cars to pass. In front of the houses there is a narrow grass strip which, in turn, is fronted by a narrow paved area slightly higher than the road surface. There is no other or separate footpath.

The parties acquired their properties from the developers of High Ridge so that the parties moved into their respective properties in the autumn of 2003. It is no surprise, therefore, that they met one another and, for a while, became friends.

The Claimants are described in their pleadings as Robin Mitton, Celia Mitton and their children Jacob and Josephine Mitton. However, Mr Mitton told me he prefers to be called Mr Wilding-Mitton. Mrs Wilding-Mitton’s maiden name was Wilding and it is clear that Mr Wilding-Mitton had a very close relationship with his late father-in-law whom he regards as having been a real father to him. He clearly was deeply affected by the death of his father-in-law some 14 years ago and Mrs Wilding-Mitton told me he suffered a nervous breakdown subsequent to that death.

Jacob Wilding-Mitton was born on 29 October 1993. Josephine Wilding-Mitton was born on 10 January 1997.

The Defendants are Mr Gary Benefield and his wife Ruma Benefield. They have two children Arwen, born on 8 October 2003 and Arishi born on 17 October 2006.

I hope Mr and Mrs Benefield will forgive me saying so but they struck me as a perfectly ordinary but reasonably affluent suburban couple with aspirations and activities repeated in innumerable ways throughout the country. Mr Benefield is a self-employed chartered electrical engineer. His work is principally connected with the railway and, in particular, high speed trains. Mrs Benefield is a university graduate whose employment career is presently paused on account of her young children.

Unhappily, the friendship between the parties broke down. So serious has been that breakdown that these proceedings based on claimed harassment have been brought. They started in April 2010. Mr and Mrs Robin Wilding-Mitton and their children claim (as expressed in Mr Lawson-Cruttenden’s skeleton argument) that Mr and Mrs Gary Benefield have deliberately engaged upon a course of conduct designed to hound Mr and Mrs Wilding-Mitton out of their house and to cause economic loss to their business. Mr and Mrs Benefield say such is not the case but rather Mr and Mrs Wilding-Mitton have conducted a campaign of harassment against them. They counterclaim accordingly.

The proceedings are based upon the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. By section 1(1) of the Act a person must not pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another and which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other. This is rendered a criminal offence by section 2. Section 3 provides for a civil remedy in respect of an actual or apprehended breach of section 1(1) of the Act.

Harassment itself is not defined in the Act but I would, without regard to authority, proceed on the basis that harassment must constitute significantly more than the annoyance and bother which frequently arise by virtue of the fact the majority of us have to live in reasonable proximity to others. In other words the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is not designed to interfere with the ordinary give and take of everyday life.

The Act has been the subject of consideration by high authority. As Gage LJ said in Conn v. Sunderland City Council [2007] EWCA Civ 1492 Lord Nicholls in Majrowski v. Guy’s & St Thomas’s NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34 made some remarks about what sort of conduct might constitute harassment at work. Lord Nicholls said that courts would have in mind that irritations, annoyances, even a measure of upset, arise at times in everybody’s day to day dealings with others. To cross the boundary from the regrettable to the unacceptable the gravity of the misconduct had to be sufficient to be of an order which would sustain criminal liability.

Gage LJ, having referred to Lord Nicholls’s observations, went on to say that the touchstone was whether the conduct was of such gravity as to justify the sanctions of the criminal law. Buxton LJ, in the Conn case, said in agreement with Gage LJ, that the conduct must be of an order to sustain criminal liability, and not merely civil liability on some other register.

I should draw attention to section 1(3). It will be remembered that to be actionable there must be a course of conduct amounting to harassment and known or ought to be known to be harassment. The first question always has, therefore, to be whether there is a course of conduct falling within the Act. Section 1(3) tells us that certain courses of conduct do not fall within the Act. Thus, the subsection states that subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows (a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, (b) that it was pursued under an enactment or (c) that in the particular circumstances, the course of conduct was reasonable.

Accordingly, having sought to identify what I am being asked to recognise I turn to the evidence from which that recognition will come.

I had the benefit of witness statements from all the parties to the litigation and they all gave oral evidence before me. I should say at once that I was very unimpressed with the evidence given by Mr Wilding-Mitton. I consider it clear that he has become or allowed himself to become obsessed with his neighbours and prepared to identify as sinister the most ordinary of suburban activities. He has equipped his house with at least 4 cameras so as to be able to record what occurs in its vicinity.

Mr Wilding-Mitton produced in evidence a disc which enables the images recorded by the 4 cameras to be viewed. This was done in respect of an incident in August 2010. The event was, according to Mr Wilding-Mitton, one in which Mr Benefield, who was returning home in his car, followed him and a young Russian student. They were returning to No.9 on bicycles. It was said that the manner the car followed them was clearly intended to cause alarm and distress.

I watched the disc on several occasions. I noted the 4 screens (reflecting the 4 cameras) showing a very quiet suburban scene. The fact that the pictures were recorded over time was only apparent by the rustling of leaves in the breeze. Two cyclists can then be seen plainly cycling uphill. They were followed by a car keeping and maintaining a reasonable distance. It must have been going slowly for the bicycles were clearly going up a hill. There was obviously no intention to cause alarm or distress.

Mr Wilding-Mitton put but one other DVD into evidence. It is of a scene which Mr Wilding-Mitton described as constituting Mr and Mrs Benefield loitering at the back of his house for about 30 minutes. However, it should be remembered that the back of his house, as described by Mr Wilding-Mitton, constitutes part of High Ridge, which must, in contrast to the part of High Ridge leading up to Nos.2 and 9 from Imperial Way, be relatively flat. This stretch of road leads to other properties in the cul-de-sac. The scene in question was filmed through net curtains and then through a window. It shows a typical suburban scene on a flat part of a quiet cul-de-sac. There were children on tricycles or bicycles one of which was a bicycle with stabilisers. The child on it appeared to be learning to cycle. Two men were walking and talking whilst keeping an (innocent) eye on the children. There is also filmed a lady walking with the children. There were no signs of danger or distress at all.

Mr Wilding-Mitton maintained in his evidence that he has consulted experts on both sides of the Atlantic to enable him to tell me that from the outset of their relationship Mr and Mrs Benefield, who should be classified as psychopaths, had a planned campaign to destroy Mr Wilding-Mitton and his family. He said that he thought the matter, which he described as the hounding of an innocent person, to be of national importance. He said that they, by which I understood him to mean his family, were trying to defend themselves in an impossible situation.

He said that Mr Benefield was a platinum smirker who had a moronic stare. A consequence was, according to Mr Wilding-Mitton, that his daughter, who in the witness box appeared an amiable teenager, had been subject to psychological rape or molestation. Nothing she said in her evidence came remotely close to that kind of categorisation. He maintained that Mr Benefield was a psychopathic narcissist and that Mrs Benefield had a psychotic disorder.

It can be noted that Mr Wilding-Mitton has no claimed expertise in psychology and that the list of documents produced by him for the purpose of disclosure in this action contains no medical or psychiatric reports at all. However, he maintained that Mr and Mrs Benefield planned psychological terror. A curiosity can be noted in this regard.

The case was opened on the basis that Mr and Mrs Benefield had deliberately engaged on a course of conduct to hound the Wilding-Mittons out of their home and damage their business. Further, from the start of his oral evidence Mr Wilding-Mitton made plain that he viewed the Benefields as having planned his family’s downfall from the outset of their relationship. Thereafter his evidence was scattered with references to the Benefields’ psychological difficulties.

In closing Mr Lawson-Cruttenden prayed in aid these remarks not in support of the proposition they were correct but rather in support of the proposition that the character of the statements made revealed a want of mental health on the part of his client so as to support the suggestion that the conduct he, Mr Wilding-Mitton, pursued, was (within section 1(3)) shown to be either for the purpose, as he believed, of preventing crime or reasonable, bearing in mind his belief, in the particular circumstances. The belief being affected by his mental state. It is not possible to identify that proposition within either the pleadings or the evidence adduced on behalf of Mr Wilding-Mitton.

I find that the events relied upon by the Claimants as harassment of them do not amount to harassment whether within the terms of the Act or at all. No doubt others might have acted differently from the Benefields. However, the complaints against the Benefields have been grossly exaggerated and those acts by the Benefields, driven by concern for the children of Mr and Mrs Wilding-Mitton, have been prayed in aid to attack the Benefields.

I find that originally relations between the respective families were friendly. Mr Wilding-Mitton described Mr and Mrs Benefield as if they were brother and sister to him. He said he loved them. Mr and Mrs Benefield did not categorise the relationship in those fulsome terms but spoke of the Wilding-Mittons as friends and neighbours.

Mrs Wilding-Mitton is a nurse. She principally works night duty. Mr Wilding-Mitton’s business activities are not altogether easy to describe or understand. However, he is involved with the tuition of English to those who might from time to time seek to learn English by being immersed in an English home. Consequently, the Wilding-Mittons may, from time to time, have visitors in their home. The extent of this is difficult to gauge, but I do not consider, having seen Mr Wilding-Mitton in the witness box, that he can in any way be said to be participating in a substantial business.

However, Mr Wilding-Mitton records on his writing papers an impressive list of qualifications, although one, the MA, he told me remained to be paid for. He embellished, as if to make good his academic or literary background, his consideration of Mr Benefield by saying that he, Mr Benefield, made a face like a devil’s sick of sin. I am afraid, however, that I had to remind Mr Wilding-Mitton that the quotation came from Dulce et Decorum Est by Wilfred Owen.

The relationship between the two families completely broke down in August 2006. This followed an incident which was described in evidence by Mr and Mrs Wilding-Mitton and Mr and Mrs Benefield. Their respective versions do not tally but it is clear that a wholly unsavoury incident occurred and I find that in its essentials what took place was as follows.

On Sunday 6 August 2006 Mr and Mrs Benefield went to bed relatively early, that is to say about 9.30. She was 27 weeks pregnant and he had an early start the next day. They, having gone to bed, were disturbed by noise in the vicinity of Mr and Mrs Wilding-Mitton’s house (and, therefore, in the vicinity of their house). This noise was caused by some people, seemingly students, who had accompanied Mr and Mrs Wilding-Mitton that evening for a meal or a drink. They, the students, were standing on the steps to Mr and Mrs Wilding-Mitton’s house and there was a musical instrument being played indoors. They were asked to be quiet by Mr Benefield. This would have been at about 10.45. The reply to the request from Mr Benefield, which was made by him leaning out of his bedroom window, was that they (the students) were ok until 11. Mr Benefield said this was fine but please could the noise be kept down after that. The noise did indeed stop at about 11.00.

The return of the students to No.9 High Ridge had preceded the return of Mr and Mrs Wilding-Mitton. They got back at about 11.15. They were obviously told what had happened. Events then unfolded in this way. Mrs Wilding-Mitton shouted from her house words to the effect that the Benefields were looking out of their fucking window again. At that point Mrs Benefield woke up and Mr Benefield responded by saying, in what must have been quite a loud voice as it was intended to carry, that they all had to live in their community and noise was always high.

Mr Wilding-Mitton then went onto the road and called Mr Benefield low life and said, which Mr Benefield took as a threat, that he (Mr Benefield) should come down so that it could be sorted out once and for all. Mrs Benefield must have construed it in the same light as she said to her husband to call the police. Accordingly, Mr Benefield was making his way downstairs when he heard a loud bang on the front door. He heard Mr Wilding-Mitton say things such as that Mrs Benefield did not know the ways of our society. This was taken as a racial comment for although Mrs Benefield is as British as all of the parties to the case she comes originally from India and attended university there.

Mr Wilding-Mitton was heard to make remarks like “we do things differently in this country”. The police were called and another loud bang on the front door was heard. In all probability those were kicks. This was a very unpleasant incident. Mr Benefield noticed his heart was racing and heard his wife being sick in the course of it. She heard Mr Wilding-Mitton say “why don’t you go back to the country you came from.”

There was a background to the events I have just recorded which, I find, influenced the behaviour of Mr Wilding-Mitton. However, it does not excuse that behaviour. Further, I find his protestation that he cannot have behaved in a racist way because he puts (inter alia) on certain writing paper a flag of India absurd.

The background to the incident of 6 August 2006 comes about in this way. I have already described the respective families and the location of their houses. It is easy to observe one from the other. It is hardly possible to come and go from either without, at the very least, glancing at the other. The families became friendly. Mr Wilding-Mitton says this started when he helped Mrs Benefield look after Mr Benefield who had over indulged at a function. I should mention at this stage that Mr Benefield has had and continues to have problems with his kidneys, whether this prompted or contributed to the consequences of the function was not explored in evidence and I simply view the occasion as an incident which led to the parties getting to know one another.

This neighbourly relationship involved the children. I heard from both of the Wilding-Mitton children who are both claimants in this action. They struck me as polite, well-mannered and healthy teenagers. They, and in particular Josephine, had got to know and like Mr and Mrs Benefield. It will be noticed that Josephine is 6 years and 9 months older than Arwen Benefield. She came to be very fond of Arwen and fell into the habit of playing with Arwen when Arwen was (as he was in 2005) about 18 months to 2 years old. She said to me that it was far better than playing with any doll and anyone who has seen children aged about 8 or 9 with two year olds will readily understand that remark.

Whether or not the relationship between Josephine and Arwen preceded or was a consequence of the circumstances I am about to describe does not matter. However, it is necessary to record that Mr and Mrs Wilding-Mitton fell into the habit of asking Mr and Mrs Benefield to keep an eye on their children. Meals were provided at No.2 and from time to time it would be mentioned by Josephine that she had not eaten at her home with the consequence that she had her meal with the Benefields.

I do not consider it much matters for present purposes how frequently these events occurred. However, towards the end of 2005 Mr and Mrs Benefield began to feel that they were being put upon. Further, Mr Wilding-Mitton had asked for a loan of £2,000 and the requests to look after the children took the form of asking the Benefields to look after the children from their house when the children were at home in No.9. This then had to take the form of the Benefields staying in their sitting room and looking across the road to No.2. Mr and Mrs Benefield did not feel comfortable with this arrangement. Further, Mrs Benefield had bought groceries for the Wilding-Mittons and never been reimbursed.

Accordingly, by the beginning of 2006 Mr and Mrs Benefield sought to lessen the relationship with the Wilding-Mittons. They wanted to and continued to be neighbourly but wanted to avoid the feeling of being put upon. It was suggested that they did not formally notify the Wilding-Mittons. However, I think that is unrealistic. Neighbourly and friendly contact varies over time and does not admit of formal notices or declarations.

As I have said Mrs Wilding-Mitton works as a night nurse. This, obviously, frequently takes her out of her house at night. By 2006 and during 2006 Mr and Mrs Benefield had noticed that there were occasions when Mr Wilding-Mitton would leave No.9 after Mrs Wilding-Mitton had left for the hospital. This was something which was inevitably going to be noticed given the proximity of the two houses and the knowledge that Mr and Mrs Benefield had of the Wilding-Mitton family.

It was entirely understandable that Mr and Mrs Benefield were anxious about this. They knew and liked the Wilding-Mitton’s children. They knew their mother would have gone out for the whole night to work. They knew that there had been occasions when they had fed, at the very least, Josephine who had from time to time said she had not been fed at home. They knew because they had seen it and smelt it that from time to time Mr Wilding-Mitton appeared the worse for drink. They knew that there had been occasions that Mr Wilding-Mitton had said that if the Benefields would not keep an eye on the children he would just have to leave them.

This was not a matter which Mr and Mrs Benefield could readily deal with through their other neighbours. This is because they, the Benefields, were the closest both geographically and otherwise to the Wilding-Mittons. Indeed other neighbours viewed Mr Wilding-Mitton with suspicion. Thus, I heard from Mr and Mrs Crispin. They also live in High Ridge, although at the other end of the close from Mr and Mrs Wilding-Mitton. The Crispins also bought their house from the developers. Mr Crispin described, unchallenged, that he would often see Mr Wilding-Mitton walking home from the local shops, looking the worse for wear for drink as he appeared to be staggering. He also said, again unchallenged, that Mr Wilding-Mitton struck him as a very odd individual to whom he found it difficult to relate. He struck him as an intense individual who at times almost appeared obsessive. Mrs Crispin summarised, unchallenged, Mr Wilding-Mitton as being an odd individual who appears to behave in a very strange way. She describes him as believing the world owes him a favour, always wanting something for nothing.

In this context I draw attention to some evidence given by Mrs Benefield, which I accept. She recalls an occasion when she, heavily pregnant with Arishi, was talking to some neighbours. Mr Wilding-Mitton came round and asked Mr and Mrs Benefield to look after his children. Mrs Benefield explained that she could not do so as she was having difficulties with her pregnancy. The response was that if she didn’t they, the children, would just be left on their own.

I accept that Mrs Benefield warned Mrs Wilding-Mitton of the concern that Mr and Mrs Benefield had that the children were being left alone after Mrs Wilding-Mitton went to work. I accept that Mrs Wilding-Mitton told Mrs Benefield that her husband had a problem with drink. I do not doubt but that such warnings – and I am satisfied that there was more than one – would have been difficult conversations. It is quite a courageous thing for Mrs Benefield to have done but, as I find, it was driven by concern for the children and not by any plan to damage the Wilding-Mitton family. I also find that Mrs Benefield raised the matter with Mr Wilding-Mitton as well.

It was suggested that the Benefields should have contacted the children’s grandmother or one or other of their aunts. But this is an unrealistic suggestion. Where those people lived was unknown to the Benefields. They did not have their telephone numbers. In any event Mr and Mrs Wilding-Mitton had both been spoken to by Mrs Benefield.

It so happens that the concerns of the Benefields about the children being left alone continued. I have mentioned the position in respect of other neighbours and I have mentioned the warnings that had been given. Mrs Benefield, with, I find, the approbation of her husband contacted the police during the summer of 2006 and, in particular, on an occasion some weeks prior to the incident of 6 August 2006. The police suggested that the Benefields contact social services. In addition the police visited the Wilding-Mittons’ house. I heard from Mr Matthew Bruce that he in the summer of 2006 was working with Mr Wilding-Mitton and happened to be in the house when, neither parent being present, the police called responding to a call alleging that children were without adult supervision. Mr Bruce’s presence revealed this was not the case and the police left.

Mr Bruce, as I say gave evidence. He did so at a time when Mrs Benefield was in court. Mr Bruce, if he will forgive me saying so, has quite a striking appearance. However, neither Mr nor Mrs Benefield had ever seen him before he gave evidence. This is illuminating in a number of respects. First, it supports the proposition that, contrary to Mr Wilding-Mitton’s contention, the Benefields are not watching and besetting the Wilding-Mitton’s house. Second, that in all probability, consistent with my view that pupils were not as abundant as Mr Wilding-Mitton asserts, Mr Bruce was not present as much as Mr Wilding-Mitton suggests. Third, it in no way undermines the genuineness of the concern felt by the Benefields. It merely reveals that on the occasion described by Mr Bruce he was present.

Accordingly, I find that in the summer of 2006 the Benefields had a genuine concern that the children in No.9 were being left alone and that consistent with that concern but not otherwise the police were contacted in circumstances when other options were considered by the Benefields to have been exhausted. I consider it beside the point that someone else might have waited longer. It may equally be supposed that others might have acted sooner. I should add that Mr Wilding-Mitton suggests there was at this time (i.e. July 2006) a second call to the police about the children being left alone. I find that if there was such a call it was motivated by exactly the same spirit of concern that I have mentioned and not otherwise.

However, by the time the events of August 6^th 2006 occurred the background to those events included the clearly important feature of the reporting to the police and the visit by the police. Indeed Mr Benefield accepted the possibility of Mr and Mrs Wilding-Mitton being shocked and frightened by the report and the visit of the police but he could not comment on the character of the shock or fright.

Mr Lawson-Cruttenden on behalf of Mr Wilding-Mitton submitted that the events of Sunday 6^th August should be seen as a robust invitation by Mr Wilding-Mitton to the Benefields to have a civilised discussion about the matter so as to clear it up. I do not accept that submission. The events, which I have described, are not consistent with it. This was an episode when, in all probability fuelled by drink, Mr Wilding-Mitton behaved in a racist and threatening manner. The background I have set out may serve as a mitigating feature but it does not turn a threatening and highly unpleasant incident into a request for a civilised discussion.

No sustainable reason has ever been given as to why in the weeks between the incident when the police visited and August 6^th one or other of the Wilding-Mittons did not visit or telephone the Benefields to speak about the incident. This could have taken the form of a quiet remonstration or, which on the facts would have been appropriate, an expression of gratitude for the concern shown. The observation could have been made that, although it may not have been apparent, there was, in fact, an adult student in the house. Alternatively a note to that effect could have been put through the letterbox.

However, Mr Lawson-Cruttenden submits that after the report to the police and the police visit his adult clients were so shocked and frightened that they could do nothing but retreat into their property and, in effect seal themselves off. The difficulty with this submission is that it is not supported by the evidence and neither of the adult claimants gave credible evidence to that effect. Further, it was much pressed on me that Mrs Wilding-Mitton is a nurse able to deal with a variety of situations and, as I say, Mr Wilding-Mitton records himself as a managing director with a variety of degrees. Conspicuously, they did not retreat to their house on 6 August but rather went out and returned after the noisy students.

I should also mention that by August 2006 there had been an earlier request made by the Benefields of the Wilding-Mittons’ children that they should desist from playing with a ball against the Benefields living room wall. I view this matter as relatively trivial. I consider it both likely and desirable that children in quiet streets should play in those streets. Inevitably, from time to time, the wrong wall or the wrong place will be chosen and a request such as that made by the Benefields will be made. By no reasonable stretch of the imagination can it be categorised as victimisation, harassment or a campaign against a family. However, the incident undoubtedly fed Mr Wilding-Mitton’s view of the matter and his view of the matter has undoubtedly become an obsession coloured by wholly unrealistic suspicions.

The upshot of the incident of 6 August 2006 was this. Mr Wilding-Mitton was arrested. A witness statement by a police officer called Allen Hawkins has been placed before me. It records that he and Police Constable Rawlings attended High Ridge just after midnight. They encountered Mr Wilding-Mitton standing on his steps. He identified himself and smelt of intoxicating liquor and had slurred speech. I interpose that I reject the evidence of Jacob Wilding-Mitting that on that evening no more than one glass of wine had been drunk. Mr Wilding-Mitton was taken to Ashford and placed in custody. On the way he said amongst other things that the police officers were lowly coppers who did not know what they were doing. He had, it was said, two detective constables who were friends and they, the arresting officers, were finished.

On the 7 August 2006 at 3.15 Mr Wilding-Mitton was given bail in connection with a racially aggravated offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act. There was a condition not to contact or interfere with, directly or indirectly, any prosecution witness namely Ruma Benefield or Gary Benefield.

The parties rely on the events of 6 August 2006 in different ways. Mr Wilding-Mitton contends that the events of 6 August form part of the campaign by the Benefields against the Wilding-Mittons. On the other hand the Benefields point to the events of 6 August as representing both by itself unacceptable behaviour and the effective start of a campaign of unacceptable behaviour.

To consider these respective positions it is instructive to consider the approach of the Claimants in their closing submissions. Mr Lawson-Cruttenden said that the earlier step of the telephone call to the police provides the meaning for the incident of 6 August. He said that step was the worst example of harassment. He said it was intended to leave the Claimants shocked and frightened. Mr and Mrs Wilding-Mitton were, it was submitted, under enormous pressure. He submits that Mrs Benefield on 6 August or in the very early hours of 7 August conceived the idea that conditions should be placed on Mr Wilding-Mitton’s bail and that the Benefields between them laid the ground for labelling Mr Wilding-Mitton a racist when he could not possibly be as he had been friendly with Mrs Benefield and, as stated, had the Indian flag on some writing paper.

Mr Lawson-Cruttenden went on to say that any abuse which was given was reasonable in the circumstances or fell within article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He showed me a decision of a Divisional Court in Redmond-Bate v. DPP (1999) 7 BHRC 375 in which a lady preached Christianity, as she understood it, from the steps of Wakefield Cathedral. A crowd gathered and some showed hostility. The preacher was asked to stop by a police officer who then arrested her on the basis she was about to cause a breach of the peace. Sedley LJ sitting with Collins J held that a police officer had no right to call upon someone to desist from lawful conduct. It was the passers by showing hostility who should have been asked to desist. Free speech included the unwelcome and provocative provided it did not tend to provoke violence.

I trust that I am, with respect to Sedley LJ and Collins J, as solicitous of free speech as they are but I cannot see the significance of that case to circumstances when a married couple having gone to bed are woken up by noise in the street and then confronted by foul language from their neighbours, one of whom, when plainly drunk, banged on their door and shouted racist remarks. There is no equivalence between Mr and Mrs Wilding-Mitton and the preacher in Wakefield.

I have indicated the upshot of the incident of 6 August 2006 as Mr Wilding-Mitton being bailed in the afternoon of 7 August. Consequently, by 9 August Mr Wilding-Mitton had been back at High Ridge for two days. On 9 August 2006 there was a party of some description at No.9 High Ridge. This event led to the police taking statements from both Mr and Mrs Benefield. I accept Mr and Mrs Benefield as truthful witnesses and I accept that they honestly tried to recount to the police on 10 August 2006, when they gave statements, what happened.

At about 10.30 p.m. Mr Benefield was downstairs. Mrs Benefield had gone to bed. He, Mr Benefield, noticed noise coming from outside. He asked a lady in the road whether she would mind keeping the noise down. There was polite agreement. Meanwhile Mrs Benefield had got out of bed to see what was happening. She looked out of the window. She could see Josephine Mitton and another child who started to call out “go on, call the police”. Someone else then came out of No.9. He shouted at Mrs Benefield to call the police observing that she was a stupid cow.

Mrs Benefield told Mr Benefield that she had been abused. She was plainly irritated and said she would call the police. Following the call to the police or (because it seems unlikely that the Wilding-Mittons overheard the call) in the expectation that a call had been made the Wilding-Mitton household went quiet.

By the time the statements came to be made the afternoon of 10 August 2006 had come and gone. At about 4.45 p.m. the Benefields were outside about to go to Sainsbury’s. Mr Wilding-Mitton appeared in his car and stopped to call out to Mr Benefield “shit head”. Mrs Benefield when she was reporting this to the police said that Mr Wilding-Mitton had said “you shit face”.

Mr Lawson-Cruttenden contended that this showed that if Mr Wilding-Mitton had said anything, which I understood him to deny, it was sotto voce so that each of Benefields heard it slightly differently. I reject this suggestion. I hold that each heard vulgar abuse and, as Mr Sinclair for the Benefields points out, the slight difference supports the proposition, as was the case, that the statements were taken separately by the police and were honest recollections.

I do not find Mr Bruce’s account of this incident tenable. I also reject Mr Wilding-Mitton’s proposition that the incident was one got up by Mrs Benefield to embarrass him in front of guests.

The upshot of the incidents of 9 and 10 August 2006 was that on, as it appears, 12 August 2006 Mr Wilding-Mitton was again taken to the police station. He was charged that on 6 August 2006 he had used threatening, abusive and insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour which was racially aggravated. He was granted bail. There were conditions additional to those previously imposed. He was subject to a condition not to be abusive to police officers and not to be drunk in a public place. The imposition of these conditions is, of course, consistent with the history I have recited.

Mr Wilding-Mitton maintains that he was, in effect, set up, by the Benefields. He maintains that Mrs Benefield in her first police statement by her reference to conditions on the Mitton family was executing a plan to enable her subsequently to claim breach of bail conditions so as to land Mr Wilding-Mitton in trouble when she falsely asserted such breach. The false assertion of such breach was said to have occurred on 10^th August 2006 in the second statement to the police.

This is not a credible position. I do not believe that Mrs Benefield in the early hours of the morning thought of such a scheme or that subsequently she set out to mislead the police into implementing any such scheme.

Mr Wilding-Mitton also maintains that the statements to the police represented false allegations of child abuse. This is not a tenable construction of the statements. Mrs Benefield was describing the background which included not merely Mr Wilding-Mitton having been frequently drunk but also the Wilding-Mittons’ children having had food from the Benefields or meals with the Benefields.

Mr and Mrs Wilding-Mitton moved to Durham in about October 2006. It is claimed that this was to avoid being subject to further false allegations by the Benefields. It is said that this was solely attributable to the Defendants’ campaign of harassment. However, I do not consider there was any such campaign. I note that whilst in the North East Mr Wilding-Mitton did seek to enter into a business venture with a premiership football club in Durham.

It is clear that Mr Wilding-Mitton has contacts with the North-East where he obviously spent part of his youth.

Meanwhile the property in High Ridge was supposedly looked after without seeming reward by a lady named Anne Whoan. Whilst in her care the property appears to have been used for the cultivation of cannabis. Mr Wilding-Mitton said this damaged the house almost beyond repair. However, that is an exaggeration.

In any event whilst Mr Wilding-Mitton was in Durham the criminal proceedings were dropped and by early 2007 Mr Wilding-Mitton had returned to Ashford. There is, hereafter, a sequence of events which can be taken from documents maintained by the police. These are so called CAD reports which are not the easiest documents to follow because of the abbreviations used and the fact that in certain instances some words have been redacted.

In fact the CAD reports start in January 2006 with a call by Mr Wilding-Mitton referring to some unspecified threats. The CAD refers to the events which occurred in August 2006 but I do not need to recite them. In September 2006 Mr Wilding-Mitton is complaining to the police of silent telephone calls. These calls were part of the pleaded case against the Benefields. An order was obtained enabling telephone records to be inspected. Such inspection produced what may be described as a nil return although it appears that not all records were capable of being inspected. Accordingly, that part of the case although never formally withdrawn was not pursued.

In September 2006 Mr Wilding-Mitton is recorded as stating that his car had been damaged again. The question of this or related damage was discussed when oral evidence was given. Mr Wilding-Mitton said the police did not want to know. The CAD, however, records that there was clearly no evidence to link anyone to the damage.

In September 2006 Mr Wilding-Mitton was also telling the police that the Benefields had made false allegations about the children. In this respect it can be noted that on the occasion I have described when the police were telephoned about the children being left alone Mrs Wilding-Mitton learnt of the occasion from the Benefields rather than from Mr Wilding-Mitton. He informed Mrs Wilding-Mitton after she had returned from the Benefields. The inference that can be drawn is that Mr Wilding-Mitton was, at the very least, uncomfortable about what had happened.

In the middle of September 2006 Mr Wilding-Mitton reported a car being driven straight at him. This was said to have been done by Mr Benefield. However, the CAD records this as a case of careless driving with Mr Wilding-Mitton not believing the car was driven at him. In the pleadings the matter was put as Mr Benefield’s large black Volvo being driven at him to scare him. I do not believe that happened. Mr Wilding-Mitton said the police had mis-recorded the incident.

On 1 February 2007 Mr Wilding-Mitton again contacted the police. This time it was indicated that the Benefields had committed three offences, wasting police time, perverting the course of justice and harassment. In connection with the latter it was said they gloated at him from the window. In cross-examination this was described by Mr Wilding-Mitton as moronic staring.

The CAD records a number of conversations in February 2007. It is unnecessary to repeat them all. One refers to an allegation by Mr Wilding-Mitton that Mr Benefield had said why didn’t he grow cannabis plants. I do not consider that such an incident occurred in any way as to cause harassment. It is instructive that Mr Wilding-Mitton again complained that the police had mis-recorded the matter as reported by him. He said the police were unprofessional.

A further record in the CAD for April 2007 is said to involve misreporting by the police. The majority of policing was said by Mr Wilding-Mitton to be done in a childish way.

One entry on the CAD seemingly comes from a female telling the police what Mr Wilding-Mitton had told her. I do not recite what was told on 23^rd April 2007 but it included a reference to a press conference being held. This was something Mr Wilding-Mitton indicated he sought to do. On the same day Mr Wilding-Mitton called the police on several occasions. These extended into 24^th April with complaints by Mr Wilding-Mitton that the police were not doing enough.

By 14^th May 2007 Mr Wilding-Mitton was still complaining. He stated to the police that the neighbours were still walking past the house and causing a disturbance. He stated he would be making a complaint against the police if the matter was not investigated. On 5^th July 2007 the police were told by Mr Wilding-Mitton that a Chinese or Vietnamese narcotic gang had turned his house into a cannabis factory. He complained about the loss adjuster on the insurance claim. He complained he had received harassing phone calls and stated he had become ill.

On the 12^th July 2007 he stated he had only just got the house fixed after the enemies had sent in the narcotics gang. He told me that in so saying he may have gone over the top but the Ashford police were defaming him. On the 13^th July 2007 there is a reference to Mr Wilding-Mitton saying the neighbours’ harassment seemed to have fizzled out. Nothing had happened for the last few months.

The next CAD reference which can sensibly be mentioned is that for the 3 February 2008. On this occasion Mr Benefield was the informant. He telephoned the police out of concern, as I find, for the children. Mrs Wilding-Mitton had gone to work and he, by chance, had noticed Mr Wilding-Mitton leave. The timing of the call is entirely consistent with such a belief. The police when they visited at about 10.30 p.m. found Mr Wilding-Mitton at home but his wife at work. The children appeared well.

I do not consider this was part of a campaign of harassment at all. There were obvious reasons to worry about the behaviour of Mr Wilding-Mitton and, on the face of it, the children had been left at home alone. Fortunately, the children were not in harm’s way and it was clear to me when they gave evidence that the children were respectable and well behaved teenagers. However, I should add that it is clear that the obsession of Mr Wilding-Mitton with the Benefields has had an effect on the children and it was noticeable that there were some expressions used by them consistent with these matters having been spoken of on frequent occasions in their house. Thus, Jacob, on one occasion, said his mother made sure they were eating well. Josephine said, on one occasion, she was made to feel scared and alarmed. The manner these expressions were used was suggestive of prior discussion. It can also be noted that the children’s witness statements both start by referring to injunctive relief. Josephine said she had no idea what this was. I do not consider a witness statement should be drafted and signed in language not understood by the deponent. I should add that the police record records the call from Mr Benefield as a genuine call regarding the children’s welfare.

The CAD record sets out further calls in February 2008 from Mr Wilding-Mitton. He complained about the lack of police action. He complained about the Benefields not being interviewed under caution. Calls to the police continued in March 2008.

Additionally at the end of March 2008 Mr Wilding-Mitton distributed a letter to his neighbours. This letter should be quoted. It proceeds as follows:

“Dear Neighbours,

Gary Benefield of 2 High Ridge has been reported to the police for intimidating our daughter ---------- on Sunday 30^th March just gone. She was very scared by his cowardly and malicious behaviour; a fear one would expect from one so young. A few weeks ago both Mr and Mrs Benefield also stalked us in their Volvo when I took ----------- to be picked up from church.

Amongst other things Mr & Mrs Benefield also bullied our children ------------during the summer of 2006 and their harassment has not stopped since we returned from trying to get away from them. At the time they were also both noted by a then serving police officer to be constantly hanging around our children which is quite perverse given the circumstances at the time. In March of 2007 they were finally issued with a formal police harassment warning.

Bearing all of this in mind and especially with regards to Sunday’s rather sinister turn of events we ask you please to send her straight home if you see her out playing and either or both of the Benefields appear to be moving towards her. Thank you and so sorry to impose upon you.

We await the result of a senior Police Inspector’s investigation into this very serious matter.”

An attempt was made to defend this letter on the basis that those who received it were aware that Mr Wilding-Mitton was odd and therefore would discount it. This does not, as it appears to me, provide much comfort for Mr Benefield. He is accused of hanging around children in a way which is perverse and being the subject of a police investigation into a very serious matter.

I consider it clear that Mr Wilding-Mitton must have known, especially if he paused for but a moment’s thought, that this letter would inevitably cause considerable distress and anxiety to the Benefields.

It should be mentioned that the reference in the letter to the intimidation of the daughter appears to be a reference to an incident when Josephine was watching a film in the Wilding-Mittons’ sitting room. Mr Wilding-Mitton, although he was not in the room at the time, describes Mr Benefield as staring from his bedroom window and making aggressive faces at Josephine. She put it in terms of being able to see from her side that Mr Benefield was in his bedroom and that there was eye contact making her uncomfortable.

Mr Benefield denies making aggressive faces or the like and I believe him. I judge that if Josephine felt uncomfortable it was because so much had been said in her house about the Benefields that in the light of a perfectly innocent moment by Mr Benefield she jumped to a conclusion or when she told Mr Wilding-Mitton he jumped to a conclusion. I should also here mention that Josephine, in her evidence, described another occasion when she was on her own in the sitting room. Mr Benefield she said was outside with Arwen in a pushchair. She was made to feel, she said, scared and alarmed. She told her father who rang the police. I do not believe that Mr Benefield sought to scare or alarm. This is, insofar as it can be classified as an incident, dressed up out of all proportion by Mr Wilding-Mitton.

In any event quite apart from the letter Mr Wilding-Mitton reported the matter to the police stating that Mr Benefield had been giving dirty looks to his daughter. He said if the matter was not sorted he would go to his MP. The police noted that he had a history of making false allegations and complaints against the police.

I can conveniently mention at this stage that I did not consider the evidence of Jacob Wilding-Mitton to be of material assistance. There was very limited information that he could offer. I did not find the evidence of either Mr Juan Carlos Sanz or Mr David King to be helpful. Neither had been seen by either of the Benefields before and Mr King did not know, when he had been at High Ridge, to whom he had spoken. He did not recognise Mrs Benefield. He seemed unfamiliar with his witness statement. I do not in any shape rely on his evidence as being material against the Benefields. The same holds true for Mr Sanz’s evidence. There was confusion over the dates he was in the country.

Calls to the police continued to be made by Mr Wilding-Mitton. In October 2008 an officer attending High Ridge being satisfied that no harassment of Mr Wilding-Mitton had taken place so informed Mr Wilding-Mitton. He, the officer, records Mr Wilding-Mitton’s reaction. He launched a monologue about the injustice of being falsely arrested on the word of the Benefields. He wanted them prosecuted for wasting police time. He wanted Mr Benefield interviewed under caution. The officer recorded that he had given in the CAD record a very brief summary of a long saga. He took the view that Mr Wilding-Mitton was mentally ill, was obsessive and convinced freemasons were protecting the Benefields from prosecution.

Notwithstanding that expression of view calls to the police from Mr Wilding-Mitton continued. I do not see any purpose in reciting these continued allegations. I emphasise that I do not accept that the Benefields, who live their lives as ordinarily as they can in their house in which they keep the blinds down, have pursued any harassment of the Wilding-Mittons at all. However, it is plain that the police, in consequence, must have gone many times to see the Benefields. On an earlier occasion both male parties, in fact, signed an officer’s book indicating they would stay away from the other.

The CAD records before me conclude on the 21 October 2009 with a complaint by Mr Wilding-Mitton that Mr Benefield happened to leave High Ridge in his car at the same time as Mr Wilding-Mitton was getting into his car. This was said to be harassment. It was explained that all other allegations had been dealt with and the matter did not constitute harassment. Mr Wilding-Mitton said he was not happy and that Chief Inspector Frayne was not doing his job properly and he was unhappy with the letter form the Chief Inspector.

This appears to be a reference to a letter dated 21 Septembers 2009 which I shall set out.

“Dear Mr Mitton

I have today received a report following the comprehensive review of your series of letters and complaints alleging harassment by your neighbours, Mr & Mrs Benefield

I have discussed the matter at length with my Case Review Officer and with PC’s Stretton and Carroll who have looked into several of your reports as well as collating an extensive file of enquiries and reports involving yourself and allegations with regard to the Benefields.

I am advised and concur that there is no evidence, contained in any of the reports which you have made, on which Kent Police would be prepared to initiate proceedings against Mr Benefield or his wife.

I note from your correspondence that you have engaged a firm of London solicitors for the purpose of suing Mr Benefield in the High Court concerning the above issues. In recognition of this I am advising you that Kent Police will not be taking any further part in this matter. The extensive file prepared by my officers will be made available to your solicitor if she wishes to attend Ashford Police station and inspect it.

In addition to the foregoing information my own inspection of these documents lead me to the firm belief that far from being the aggrieved party you have made numerous allegations against Mr Benefield which have turned out to be unfounded.

It is clear from the work done by my officers that your continued series of allegations against Mr Benefield could be construed as harassment in itself.

Additionally I must point out to you that if any of the reports that you have made were proven to be false or malicious in nature this would constitute a serious offence and result in proceedings for ‘wasting police time’ as well as any other criminality, which may be disclosed.

I advise you to avoid contact or personal communication with Mr Benefield during your court proceedings and to consider very carefully the truthfulness of any further reports, which you may make to the police.

My officers have been advised to consider proceeding against you for harassment, or any other offence, which may be disclosed, if you make further reports which on investigation, appear to be malicious or untruthful.

Yours sincerely

John Frayne

Chief Inspector

District Commander (Ashford)

c.c. Lawson-Cruttenden & Co., Solicitors & Advocates, 10-11 Gray’s Inn Square, London WC1R 5JD

c.c. Damian Green MP, Houses of Parliament, London SW1A 0AA”.

I should add that throughout 2009 there had been correspondence with Chief Inspector Frayne in which the Benefields were accused, variously, of manifest criminal behaviour, menacing Josephine, criminal harassment, loitering, organising themselves to destroy Mr Wilding-Mitton’s business and his family, being sociopathic, involved in commercial espionage and sabotage, guilty of grievous bodily harm and attempted murder and hatred of Christians. These accusations were, I hold, false. I also hold to be false the accusation that Mr Benefield on one occasion made a Hitler salute to or towards Mr Wilding-Mitton. Mr Benefield was waving to a local licensee who happened to be with Mr Wilding-Mitton.

I have not recited and I do not propose to recite all the occasions on which Mr Wilding-Mitton has sought to pursue his campaign against the Benefields. In general terms it can put in three categories. First, the incidents in which Mr Wilding-Mitton was directly involved such as the incident of 6 August 2006. Second, the false assertions made to the neighbours. I have drawn attention to and quoted a particular letter. However, there is evidence, which I accept, that there were three or four letters to neighbours. Further, Mr Wilding-Mitton actually told at least one set of neighbours what he took to be his concerns. This was so stated by Mr Crispin, whose evidence I accept. I am sure he will have told others. Mrs Crispin plainly viewed the allegations as ridiculous and threw back the piece of paper on which they were written. This was said by Mr Wilding-Mitton to constitute assault. Third, the persistent pressure on the police by way of false allegations with demands for action. It is quite apparent, as stated, that these calls generated many visits by the police to the Benefields.

I consider it clear beyond any doubt that the actions of Mr Wilding-Mitton fall within the definition of harassment in the Act. I remind myself that in order to constitute harassment the line must be crossed so that the proper categorisation is criminal. That line is clearly crossed. I also remind myself that certain courses of conduct if such are shown to have happened do not constitute harassment. Such has not been shown here.

On the evidence before me I do not accept that Mr Wilding-Mitton was or thought he was pursuing a reasonable course of conduct or one to deter crime. He was pursuing a course of conduct because he was obsessed with the Benefields when he knew or ought to have known that the conduct was harassment. He wanted to get the Benefields into difficulties. For example he was very keen on the proposition that Mr Benefield should be interviewed under caution.

Although Mrs Wilding-Mitton said she agreed with her husband’s witness statement, I consider that was done out of loyalty. I do not consider that the campaign which has been conducted by her husband can be, for the purpose of a finding of harassment, laid at her door.

I do not use the effect on the Benefields as a guide to whether the line has been crossed. Nonetheless it is worth noting the evidence of Mr Crispin. He describes the Benefields as being very nice and very friendly. There have been no problems with them as neighbours. However, he described the episodes which have formed the subject matter of this litigation as creating a circumstance when they feel they cannot come out of their house. They are now very reluctant to join the Crispins in neighbourly activities. A great deal of persuasion is necessary. This contrasts with the situation when they had first moved in when they were very sociable. Now Mr Crispin describes them as introverted despite the Crispins’ best efforts to get them to come and join them.

Mrs Crispin spoke to like effect. She talks of the blinds being almost always down. Mr Benefield, she says, looks as though he is under stress.

Mrs Benefield says that initially she was very scared to be in her own home. She was apprehensive of the possibility of Mr Wilding-Mitton coming round when on her own. Accordingly, she persuaded her husband to look for work locally rather than, which was better remunerated, in London. Mr Benefield was conscious that the main pressure of the series of incidents fell onto his wife. She could not drive and was at home a great deal. She got a panic button installed on a remote key fob. It is linked to a monitoring centre and the police. After a number of incidents he moved his job out of London and began to work for South Eastern Railways in Ramsgate and then (for Hitachi) in Ashford.

I find that the change in location of employment was a direct consequence of the harassment by Mr Wilding-Mitton. Lord Nicholls, in the speech I have already cited, indicated that there was an entitlement to damages if the civil claim of harassment was made out.

Accordingly, Mr and Mrs Benefield have a claim for the general anxiety of the matter and a claim for special damages by way of the loss of earnings.

I am not in a position to assess the loss of earnings because the necessary evidence has not been adduced. Accordingly, I order that the damages by way of loss of earnings, if such cannot be agreed, be assessed by a Queen’s Bench Master. Plainly, it will be necessary to consider whether within the time for which the loss is recoverable Mr Benefield might, in any event, have had to work out of London and matters such as lower costs of travel and the possibility of extended hours out of London will need to be considered.

I hold that the loss starts at that point when Mr Benefield began to work out of London. I would consider, without prejudicing the Master’s inquiry, that the period of loss of earnings should cease 6 weeks after the injunction that I am going to grant against Mr Wilding-Mitton coming into effect. This on the basis the injunction will be effective and the rationale for working out of London is affected. However, I notice that the counterclaim is pleaded on a basis of 56 weeks’ loss. This may reflect the point I have just made namely that Mr and Mrs Benefield have sought, through their counterclaim, the protection of the Court by way of an injunction and no application for interim relief was made. Thus, although I will hear further submissions on this matter I, subject to such submissions, direct that the Master’s inquiry should not embrace damages for loss of earnings for more than 56 weeks.

In respect of the part of the claim which may be classed as general damages it will be apparent from what I have said that I view the case as a serious one. The Benefields have been considerably affected by what has happened. Their ordinary enjoyment of life in High Ridge has been materially diminished. This, I am sorry to say, is attributable to Mr Wilding-Mitton. Mr Sinclair has drawn my attention to Vento v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2002] EWCA Civ 1871 and to Martins v. Choughary [2007] EWCA Civ 1379. In his written submissions Mr Lawson-Cruttenden also referred to Vento’s case.

I have those guidelines in mind but I avoid regarding them as, if I may employ the metaphor, definite tramlines. In the circumstances I consider the sum of £7,000 is appropriate for Mr Benefield with the same sum also being awarded to Mrs Benefield. I should add that I do not agree with the proposition that I should ignore the unpleasant incident of 6 August 2006.

Mr Sinclair drafted at my request a form of injunction. I am anxious that any injunction should be practicable. The parties for the time being will continue to live in close proximity. Inevitably there are occasions when neighbours have to communicate with each other. Thus, I do not consider that I should preclude the possibility of Mr Wilding-Mitton communicating with the Benefields through, for example, Mrs Wilding-Mitton or another neighbour. I also do not consider that I should preclude access to the courts or to the police. I shall hear further submissions as to the precise form of the injunction.

Accordingly, and in CONCLUSION the claim fails in all respects. The counterclaim succeeds against the first Claimant but fails against the second Claimant. I invite the parties to agree a form of order to reflect my judgment and the terms of the injunction.