Accent Foundation Ltd. v Lee

An antisocial behaviour injunction obtained under section 153A of the Housing Act 1996 cannot generally be treated as waived merely because a person protected by it invited the respondent to enter the premises. The court must consider the statutory purpose, the interests of other persons who may benefit from the order, and the identity of the party who obtained it. Consent cannot vary the injunction; variation or discharge is for the court. Any waiver principle is subject to public policy and the rights of others. An invitation may be relevant to sanction, but it does not itself prevent a finding of breach or require a non-custodial response. Appellate intervention in sentence requires an error of principle.

Accent Foundation Limited obtained antisocial behaviour injunctions against Lee under section 153A of the Housing Act 1996. The orders prohibited violence, abuse, nuisance and annoyance towards Lee’s mother, sister, their visitors and persons living, visiting or working in specified locations, and also excluded him from specified areas.

Lee breached the orders after entering his mother’s and sister’s homes at their invitations. Her Honour Judge Belcher imposed concurrent suspended terms of 28 days for two breaches. After a further invited visit, District Judge Edwards activated the suspended sentence and imposed a further term of imprisonment. The central issues were whether the invitations waived the breaches or made enforcement an abuse of process, and whether the invitation should have led to a different sanction.

1. Appeal and waiver. The appeal was dismissed on all substantive grounds. The court accepted that a civil contempt may in some circumstances be waived, but treated that as only a general proposition. Waiver may be ineffective where public policy requires enforcement or where the order benefits other persons, including persons not named in it.
2. Here, the injunction was obtained by Accent in exercise of its housing management functions, not by the mother or sister. The order protected neighbours as well as them. Evidence showed that conduct at the properties could affect neighbours who heard or were frightened by it. The mother and sister therefore could not waive the breaches, and the invitations did not prevent enforcement.
3. The invitations did not establish abuse of process. The same circumstances were relied on and led to the same conclusion as the breach issue.
4. An invitation could be relevant to the appropriate sanction. However, the sentencing decisions showed no error of principle. The District Judge was entitled to take account of the previous plain warning, the repeated breaches and their close timing. The Court of Appeal had no basis to intervene merely because the respondent had not prevented the invitations.
5. Under section 153E(3) of the Housing Act 1996, private consent could not vary the injunction; variation or discharge was vested in the court. The orders were varied only to correct the terms of imprisonment: each should have been 28 days, rather than one calendar month. The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2007] EWCA Civ 665. The appeal from orders made by Her Honour Judge Belcher and District Judge Edwards was dismissed except that the imprisonment orders were varied so that each term was 28 days.
• Bradford County Court: Her Honour Judge Belcher found breaches on 11 and 14 May 2007 and imposed two concurrent suspended terms of 28 days. District Judge Edwards later activated the suspended sentence and imposed a further term for the 21 May breach.