Wear Valley District Council v Robson

Hearsay is admissible in contempt proceedings of this kind. The court may rely on it where, viewed in context, it provides a safe basis for findings beyond reasonable doubt.

Sentencing guidance developed for breaches of family orders does not necessarily govern contempt for breach of an anti-social behaviour injunction. A severe sentence may be proportionate where breaches are serious, repeated and aggravated by threats, intimidation and previous convictions. A six-month sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The appellant, an introductory tenant, was made subject to an anti-social behaviour injunction obtained by the respondent local authority under section 153 D of the Housing Act 1996. The injunction prohibited conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to residents and council staff.

On 16 October 2008, the Middlesbrough County Court, before His Honour Judge Fox, found the appellant in contempt and committed him to six months’ imprisonment. The appeal challenged the reliance on hearsay evidence and contended that the sentence was excessive and should have been suspended. The central issues were whether the evidence safely supported findings to the criminal standard and whether the sentence was proportionate.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal.

1. Evidence. Hearsay evidence was receivable in proceedings for breach of an anti-social behaviour injunction. The absence of direct evidence from the residents did not prevent reliance on the evidence where the circumstances supported its reliability. The reports were made close to the events, the authority’s witness was in close contact with what was happening, and the surrounding evidence showed that residents were distressed and fearful. The Recorder had applied a high standard of proof, accepted the evidence of Mr Walton and rejected the appellant’s evidence. The Court was not persuaded that the findings were unsafe.
2. Sentencing guidance. Hale v Tanner [2000] 1 WLR 2377 concerned guidance given specifically in the context of breaches of orders made in family proceedings. Although important, it did not materially advance the appellant’s sentencing argument in this case.
3. Sentence. By force of section 258 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the appellant could expect to serve half of the six-month term. The breaches were serious and repeated. They had terrorised residents and were aggravated by threats, the appellant’s attitude towards the enforcement officer and his previous convictions. Although severe, the sentence was wholly appropriate and was not manifestly excessive.
4. Later conduct. The appellant’s treatment for alcoholism, apology and efforts to purge his contempt were matters most appropriately addressed to the original judge in the purge process. They did not justify appellate interference with the sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 14 November 2008, dismissed the appeal from the committal order: [2008] EWCA Civ 1470.
• Middlesbrough County Court — On 16 October 2008, His Honour Judge Fox found the appellant in contempt of the injunction and committed him to six months’ imprisonment.