IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Birmingham Civil Justice Centre,
33 Bull Street, Birmingham B4 6DS.
Before:
HIS HONOUR JUDGE McKENNA
Between:
WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL | Claimant Local Authority |
- v - | |
MR. LOUIS JAMES TAYOR and 6 OTHERS | First Respondent |
Transcript of the digital recording by Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd.,
1st Floor, Quality House, Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP.
Telephone No: 020 7067 2900. Fax No: 020 7831 6864
MR. A. SHEEN, solicitor-advocate, appeared for the Claimant Local Authority
MR. BYRNE of counsel appeared for the First Defendant
The remaining six Respondents appeared in person and were unrepresented
JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR JUDGE McKENNA:
This is the hearing of an application by Wolverhampton City Council to commit the First Respondent, Louis James Taylor, to prison for breach of the terms of an injunction granted by His Honour Judge Robert Owen, Q.C. on 1st of December 2014 in which the activity, colloquially referred to as car cruising, was restrained in the local government areas of Dudley, Walsall and Wolverhampton. A copy of the injunction is annexed together with a copy of the Committal Notice that sets out in detail the allegations made against this Respondent and indeed the other Respondents.
Mr. Taylor is represented today by counsel and through his counsel has admitted the breaches of which he is accused and therefore this court is only, effectively, concerned with the issue of sentence. However, it is probably appropriate that I should at least give some outline as to the background to this application and is common to the applications made against the other Respondents.
The evidence filed in support of the application to commit Mr. Taylor consists of a number of affidavits from police officers and others who describe what happened on the evening of 31st of January 2016 where a number of vehicles were, it is said, involved in the activity of car cruising.
The specific allegations made against Mr. Taylor are as follows. On 31st of January 2016 at 21.15 hours he was a front seat passenger in a white Audi coupe (registration number RB12 7UW) and was participating in a car cruise on the Black Country Route near to the Elizabeth Arms public house in Wolverhampton and on a road off that road near to Halfords in Springvale Way, Wolverhampton, contrary to paragraph 1 of the injunction that was granted by His Honour Judge Robert Owen, Q.C. on 1st of December 2014, to which I have previously referred.
Specifically, the Audi was in a moving convoy of five vehicles and subsequently in a moving convoy of three vehicles near to Halfords, Springvale Way, Wolverhampton, and it is alleged - and admitted - that three of those five vehicles, including the Audi, turned off the Black Country Route and into Springvale Way.
Driving in a convoy is a prohibited activity by virtue of clause 3(b) of the schedule to the injunction and given that whilst on the Black Country Route this was a moving convoy, travelling at speed and causing excessive noise, the actions caused, or were capable of causing, significant public nuisance and significant annoyance to the public, contrary to clauses 4(e) and 4(f) of the schedule to the injunction.
The next allegation is that by being the driver of the Audi, which was part of a moving convoy, travelling at speed along the Black Country Route, Mr. Taylor contributed to a moving obstruction of the highway and that amounts to participating in a car cruise, as defined in the schedule to the injunction and because the Audi caused an obstruction on the highway, contrary to 3(i) in the schedule, which in turn caused, or was capable of causing, three of the prohibited consequences in the schedule to the injunction, namely significant public nuisance, significant annoyance to the public and obstruction, this was capable of causing danger or a risk of injury to road users, including pedestrians, which is also a breach of clause 4(b).
The final allegation against Mr. Taylor is that he was in a vehicle, in a moving convoy, travelling at speed and that is a further breach of clauses 4(a), (b) and (e).
By way of mitigation I was referred by Mr. Louis Taylor's counsel to the guidance provided by the Sentencing Guidelines Council in respect of breaches of antisocial behaviour orders and to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Willoughby v. Solihull MetropolitanBorough Council [2013] EWCA (Civ) 699. I was also referred by the advocate for Wolverhampton City Council to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Nottingham City Council v. John CharlesCutts [1999] EWCA (Civ) J1220-65.
What is said by way of mitigation on Mr. Taylor's part is that, first of all, he has made a full and frank admission of his culpability at the first occasion reasonably open to him; that he has no prior history of antisocial behaviour and indeed no prior history of any convictions; that the allegations made against him are at the lesser end of the scale and that he is not personally involved in the more serious activities described in the evidence.
It is also said on his behalf that no members of the public were in fact injured as a result of the activities with which he was personally involved, though that may well be more a matter of luck than good judgment, but, nevertheless, that is the position. He also cooperated with officers at the scene.
So far as his personal circumstances are concerned, he is in employment and has been for a number of years. He is a transport manager; in a stable relationship, hoping to buy a property of his own. It is said that in all the circumstances Mr. Taylor does not pass the custody threshold or, if he does, then any sentence that this court imposes should be suspended rather than an immediate custodial sentence.
Accepting, as I do, the substance of the mitigation put forward on Mr. Louis Taylor's behalf, I now turn to the actual sentence. The allegations made against Mr. Louis Taylor are serious. They are not to be underestimated, nor are they to be played down. The mischief in respect of which the injunction was granted is a serious one and the consequences of the activities of Mr. Taylor and his colleagues on that night could have been much more serious than in fact was the case. It is to be remembered that it may well have been very different had the police not been on the scene at the time.
In those circumstances, and notwithstanding the mitigation so ably put forward on Mr. Taylor's behalf by Mr. Byrne, I have no hesitation in imposing a sentence of a term of imprisonment in respect of the allegations made, albeit in the light of the totality of the mitigation, that that sentence will be suspended with a view to ensuring that, insofar as this court can, compliance with the terms of the injunction going forward.
In respect of each of the breaches admitted by Mr. Louis Taylor therefore I impose a sentence of twenty-eight days, those sentences to run concurrently and to be suspended on terms that Mr. Taylor complies with the terms of the injunction going forward and the period of the suspension will be co-terminus with the term of the injunction, that is to say until 1st February 2018.
Mr. Taylor should be in no doubt that if any further breaches are found to have been proved against him to the requisite standard, not only is this court likely to impose an immediate custodial sentence in respect of those breaches, but the suspended sentences will of course also be activated. I trust that Mr. Taylor now understands the seriousness with which breaches of the terms of High Court injunctions will be considered and that there will be no repetition.
I turn now to deal with the Second Respondent, Mr. Ben Taylor. He is unrepresented but wishes to be dealt with today. He was a front seat passenger in the vehicle being driven by Mr. Louis Taylor and the allegations made against him are set out at paragraphs 20.1 to 20.7 in the committal notice. He admits those breaches, namely participating in a car cruise; being in a car driven in convoy; obstructing the highway and speeding.
He, like Mr. Louis Taylor, admitted the breach on the first available occasion. He, too, has no history of previous involvement with the police either in terms of convictions or allegations of antisocial behaviour made against him.
He would have me believe that the breaches are at the minor end of the scale and that there was no harm to any member of the public. He, too, is currently in employment and, plainly, any immediate custodial sentence would have a detrimental effect on that employment.
As with Mr. Louis Taylor, although I accept the substance of the mitigation put forward by Mr. Ben Taylor, it seems to me that only a custodial sentence, albeit suspended, can properly reflect the seriousness of the allegations made against Mr. Ben Taylor and which are admitted by him.
In respect of each of the breaches therefore I sentence Mr. Ben Taylor to a term of imprisonment of twenty-eight days to run concurrently, but having regard to the mitigation will suspend those sentences and, as with Mr. Louis Taylor, the terms of the suspension are that he continues to abide by the terms of the injunction going forward. The period of the suspension will be co-terminus with the injunction 1st of February 2018.
Mr. Taylor, if there is to be any repetition, as I said with Mr. Louis Taylor, not only would you be sentenced in respect of the future activity, if proved against you, but the suspended sentence will also activated, do you understand?
MR. BEN TAYLOR: Yes.
Costs
I will make the costs order against Mr. Ben Taylor as I have done against Mr. Louis Taylor in the sum claimed.
I turn now to the case of Mr. Lee Robinson. Mr. Robinson, although he is not represented today, has indicated to the court that he would like the matter to be dealt with today. He admits the breaches.
The particular allegations made against him are set out at paragraph 21 in the committal notice. They are, in terms, that on 31st of January 2016 at around 9.30 p.m. he was the driver of a silver BMW (registration number LM03 UNY) and was participating in a car cruise near to the SMA Auctions premises off the Black Country Route. He was part of a large gathering of vehicles, approximately thirty in number, parked in a lay-by off the Black Country Route in Wolverhampton and that that caused an obstruction on the highway, as defined by clause 3(1) of the schedule to the injunction, which in turn caused, or was capable of causing, two of the prohibited consequences within clause 4 of the schedule, namely significant public nuisance and a significant annoyance to the public.
Mr. Robinson apologises for his behaviour on 31st of January in the sense of his participation in the car cruising and obstructing the highway; promises the court that it will not happen again. He is currently unemployed. Mr. Robinson has no recent criminal history. Although unemployed he lives with his girlfriend and has a young daughter.
Whilst the allegations made against Mr. Robinson are serious, they are at the lower end of the scale and having regard to his assurance that he will not repeat the activities of 31st of January and that he was not aware of the existence of the injunction at the material time, and that he has admitted the breaches at the first available opportunity by way of sentence in respect of each of the two breaches I impose a suspended sentence of fourteen days to run concurrently.
As I have said previously in respect of the two Mr. Taylors, if there were to be any further breach found against you, in addition to any sentence that would be imposed in respect of that breach, the suspended sentences would also be activated.
Again, the terms of the suspension are that Mr. Robinson complies with the terms of the injunction going forward and that the period of the suspension is until 1st of February 2018. Again, I make the same costs order as that referred to in respect of the other Respondents.
I turn now to deal with the allegations made against Mr. Evans. Again, Mr. Evans is unrepresented but is anxious that the matter should be dealt with today. He admits the allegations which are made against him. They are set out at paragraph 22 of the committal notice and are in these terms, namely that on Sunday 31st of January at around 21.30 hours he was a front seat passenger in the silver BMW that was being driven by Mr. Robinson and was participating in a car cruise near the SMA Auctions premises off the Black Country Route, contrary to paragraph 1 of the injunction granted by His Honour Judge Robert Owen, Q.C. on 1st of December 2014.
It was part of a large gathering of vehicles, approximately 30 in number, parked in a lay-by off the Black Country Route in Wolverhampton and that amounted to participating in a car cruise because the BMW caused an obstruction of the highway, as defined by 3(1) of the schedule, which in turn caused, or was capable of causing, two of the prohibited consequences within clause 4 of the schedule, namely significant public nuisance and significant annoyance to the public.
Like Mr. Robinson, Mr. Evans says that he was unaware of the existence or terms of the injunction at the material time, but is now aware; is sorry for what he has done and assures the court that there will be no repetition by him. He has also made a full admission at the first available opportunity.
To my mind the position so far as Mr. Evans is concerned is the same as Mr. Robinson and I propose to impose the same sentence of fourteen days in respect of each of the two breaches to run concurrently, suspended until 1st of February 2018 and on terms that he continues to comply henceforward with the terms of the injunction. As with Mr. Robinson, any further breach found against you will involve not only a sentence for that breach, but the activation of the suspended sentence in this case.
Mr. Gowran admits the allegations which are made against him. They are set out at paragraph 23 in the committal notice and they are, in substance, that on 31st of January 2016 he was the rear seat passenger in the silver BMW that was being driven by Mr. Robinson and was participating in a car cruise near to the SMA Auctions premises. This was part of a large gathering of vehicles, approximately thirty in number, parked in a lay-by off the Black Country Route in Wolverhampton. As such he was causing an obstruction to the highway and that in turn caused, or was capable of causing, a series of prohibited consequences within clause 4 of the schedule to the injunction, namely significant public nuisance and significant annoyance.
Mr. Gowran, by way of mitigation, says that he was unaware of the existence of the injunction, although of course he is aware of it now. He is sorry for what he did and will not do it again. He lives at home with his parents and has not been involved with the police for a number of years. He too has made a full and frank admission at the first opportunity.
Again, his activities can be characterised as at the lower end of the scale and like Mr. Evans and Mr. Robinson it seems to me that the appropriate sentence is one of fourteen days suspended until 1st of February 2018 in respect of each of the two breaches to run concurrently. Again, as with the others, Mr. Gowran should be in no doubt that if he were to be found to be in breach of the injunction again, in addition to any sentence imposed in respect of that breach, those two fourteen day sentences, which I am now imposing on a suspended basis, will be activated.
I turn now to Mr. James Burke. The allegations made against him are set out at paragraph 24 of the committal notice. Mr. Burke, too, is unrepresented today, but is anxious that the matter should be dealt with and he, too, admits all the allegations made against him in paragraph 24 of the committal notice. Those allegations are as follows. That on 31st of January 2016 at 9.15 p.m. he was the driver of a silver Ford Focus (registration number KLO5 NXU) and was participating in a car cruise on the Black Country Route near to the Elizabeth Arms public house, Wolverhampton, and on a road off the Black Country Route near to Halfords in Springvale Way, Wolverhampton, contrary to clause 1 of the injunction granted by His Honour Judge Robert Owen, Q.C. on 1st of December 2014.
More particularly, the Focus being driven by him was in a moving convoy of five vehicles when on the Black Country Route and subsequently in a moving convoy of three vehicles when near Halfords.
Driving in a convoy is a prohibited activity by virtue of clause 3(b) of the schedule to the injunction. Given that whilst on the Black Country Route this was a moving convoy travelling at speed and causing excessive noise, the actions caused or were capable of causing significant public nuisance and significant annoyance, contrary to clauses 4(b) and 4(f) of the schedule.,
He was also by driving in the manner described contributing to a moving obstruction of the highway and that action amounts to participating in a car cruise because the Focus caused an obstruction on the highway, contrary to clause 3(1) of the schedule and was capable of causing three of the prohibited consequences in the schedule, namely causing significant public nuisance; significant noise to the public and by virtue of the convoy travelling at speed the obstruction of the highway, causing danger or risk of injury to road users, including pedestrians.
It is also alleged that he was speeding whilst moving in convoy of five vehicles along the Black Country Route and, again, that is a further breach of clauses 4(a), (b) and (e).
Mr. Burke admits those breaches, and assures the court that there will no repetition. He has made a full admission at the first available opportunity. He is in employment; he lives with his girlfriend and, as with the other Respondents, urges me to conclude that his activities were at the lower end of the scale. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding what Mr. Burke says, the allegations made against him are serious and only a custodial sentence meets the mischief, albeit in the light of the mitigation I conclude that the sentence should be suspended on the condition that he complies with the terms of the injunction going forward and that the suspension period should be until 1st of February 2018.
In respect of each of the breaches which Mr. Burke admits I impose a sentence of twenty-eight days to run concurrently and to be suspended in the way that I have described. I make a costs order in the same sum as in respect of each of the other Respondents.
The seventh and last Respondent is Jodie Price. She was a front seat passenger in the Ford Focus that was being driven by Mr. Burke and the allegations made against Miss Price are to be found at paragraph 25 of the committal notice and are a mirror image of the allegations made against Mr. Burke, save that she was a passenger rather than the driver of the vehicle. She is unrepresented but is anxious to have the matter dealt with today.
Like Mr. Burke Miss Price says she was unaware of the terms of the injunction; is sorry and assures the court there will be no repetition. She too has made a full and frank admission at the first available opportunity.
Having regard to the mitigation, but also having regard to the seriousness of the allegations which she has admitted today, I impose in respect of each of the breaches a sentence of fourteen days to run concurrently and to be suspended on terms that she complies with the injunction going forward and the period of the suspension will be until 1st of February 2018.
As I have said with each of the other Respondents, if there is any further breach, in addition to any sentence in respect of that further breach, these sentences will be activated. The sentences will run concurrently. I make the same costs order.
Thank you very much. Please do not engage in this sort of activity again.
---------------------------------------------------