Peabody Trust v Belonje

When a defendant is remanded in custody pending a hearing on an alleged breach of an injunction, the court must carefully assess whether detention is necessary. Untested allegations require particular caution, especially where they do not involve direct violence. The judge should address the likelihood of further nuisance before the hearing; the importance of injunctions and a second arrest, without more, do not sufficiently justify custody. Available accommodation and welfare support may bear on whether prison is an appropriate interim measure. An appellate court remains reluctant to interfere with discretion, but may grant bail where the remand decision was plainly wrong.

The defendant appealed after HHJ Latham, sitting at Shoreditch County Court, remanded her in custody for eight days under section 155(5) of the Housing Act 1996. The order followed complaints alleging abusive language, dripping laundry and incidents involving steaming water thrown from a balcony, said to breach a housing injunction.

The allegations were untested and disputed. The defendant suffered from depression, lived alone and had no alternative accommodation. The respondent would accept her release if she did not return to her flat. The central issue was whether custody was necessary pending the adjourned hearing and whether the judge had sufficiently considered the likelihood of further nuisance.

1. Appeal allowed. The defendant was granted bail pending the further hearing.
2. The power to remand in custody required a careful assessment of necessity. The allegations had not been tested and did not amount to direct acts of violence, which would have raised different considerations. In those circumstances, the judge should have addressed whether the defendant was likely to commit further acts of nuisance before the hearing.
3. The judge’s reliance on the importance of injunctions and the fact that this was the defendant’s second arrest did not constitute a sufficient assessment of whether detention was necessary. The appellate court was therefore satisfied that it was plainly wrong to refuse bail on that basis.
4. The absence of any investigation of social services or other welfare support was relevant. The defendant had nowhere to go other than prison, and prison was not considered appropriate before the allegations were tried. Bail operated as a holding arrangement pending the hearing, with the defendant warned that any further complaint could lead to arrest and serious prejudice at the resumed hearing.
5. The court recognised its considerable reluctance to interfere with an experienced judge’s discretion in a sensitive matter. That reluctance did not prevent intervention where the discretion had been exercised on an inadequate basis.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2006] EWCA Civ 1518: appeal allowed and bail granted pending the further hearing.
2. Shoreditch County Court — On 28 June 2006, HHJ Latham remanded the defendant in custody for eight days under section 155(5) of the Housing Act 1996, pending a hearing concerning alleged breaches of an injunction.