Stevens, R. v

A breach of an anti-social behaviour order is a distinct statutory offence. Its seriousness is not confined to the maximum penalty or immediate harm associated with the underlying conduct. Sentencing may reflect the offender’s persistent anti-social behaviour, the disruption caused to the public and authorities, and, particularly, a flagrant or prompt breach of a court order.

Alcoholism may explain repeated offending, but it does not make a custodial sentence disproportionate where imprisonment is otherwise justified. The essential question, both under ordinary sentencing principles and the European Convention on Human Rights, is whether the sentence is disproportionate.

The appellant, a 57-year-old alcoholic with a substantial record of offending, pleaded guilty in the magistrates’ court to two breaches of anti-social behaviour orders. The later order had prohibited him from entering central High Wycombe. Two days after it was made, he entered the prohibited area, was drunk in public and was abusive when police attended.

He was committed to the Crown Court for sentence. His Honour Judge Cripps imposed concurrent terms of eight months’ imprisonment, with 90 days on remand credited. The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that it was disproportionate, gave insufficient credit for his guilty plea, and was cruel and inhuman treatment because his conduct resulted from alcoholism.

1. Appeal dismissed. The concurrent sentences of eight months’ imprisonment were not manifestly excessive and did not breach the European Convention on Human Rights.

2. The court rejected the submission that sentence for breach of an anti-social behaviour order must be limited by the penalty available for the underlying conduct. As recognised in R v Stevens and Lovegrove [2006] EWCA Crim 255, breach of the order is a distinct statutory offence. Its gravity includes the deliberate defiance of a court order.

3. A breach may arise from conduct which, viewed alone, appears minor. That does not make the breach trivial. Anti-social behaviour orders exist to protect the public from persistent low-level offending and nuisance. Repeated drunkenness, disturbance and abusive conduct materially interfere with the liberty of other members of the public and impose burdens on the authorities.

4. The sentencing judge was entitled to give substantial weight to the appellant’s extensive record, his earlier breaches, and the fact that the new order was breached only two days after it was imposed. The earlier sentence of one day’s imprisonment had been merciful and had given the appellant a further opportunity to comply.

5. The appellant’s alcoholism was regrettable and explained the background to his offending. However, the court had no available means of addressing that underlying condition in this sentencing exercise, and imprisonment was accepted to be unavoidable. The same proportionality assessment disposed of both the ordinary sentencing challenge and the Convention argument.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence in [2007] EWCA Crim 1128.

• Crown Court at Aylesbury: on 17 January 2007, His Honour Judge Cripps imposed concurrent sentences of eight months’ imprisonment for two breaches of anti-social behaviour orders.

• Wycombe and Beaconsfield Magistrates’ Court: on 19 October 2006, the appellant pleaded guilty to the breaches and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.