Leeds City Council v MacDonald

In sentencing for admitted breaches of an injunction restraining antisocial behaviour, seriousness must be assessed in its factual context. Relevant considerations include the persistence of the conduct, its intimidating and inconsiderate character, its effect on other residents, and the speed with which the injunction was breached. A strong sanction, including a substantial suspended term, may be justified where the injunction has been largely ignored and a firm warning is necessary to secure compliance.

Michael MacDonald appealed from a committal order made by Leeds County Court on 14 June 2007. He had admitted three breaches of an interim injunction obtained by Leeds City Council to protect neighbouring residents from antisocial behaviour. The breaches involved late-night gatherings, loud music, shouting, swearing and disruptive conduct. The county court imposed a total sentence of six months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years. The appeal challenged only the length of the sentence.

1. Appeal dismissed. The six-month sentence, suspended for two years, was not excessive.
2. The seriousness of breaches of an antisocial-behaviour injunction must be judged against the background in which the injunction was made and the consequences of the defendant’s conduct. The appellant’s behaviour had been persistent, intimidating, utterly inconsiderate and boorish, and had seriously affected the lives of his neighbours.
3. The breaches occurred within a very short time after the injunction had been made and renewed. They demonstrated that the appellant had largely ignored it. That history justified a strong warning and a strong sanction to reinforce the requirement of compliance.
4. The judge’s warning that further breaches could result in imprisonment was justified. The court therefore upheld the committal order and dismissed the appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from a committal order made by Leeds County Court on 14 June 2007. Appeal dismissed unanimously.