Birmingham City Council v Flatt

Imprisonment is not the automatic consequence of breaching an injunction. An alternative disposal may ordinarily be appropriate on a first occasion of contempt. Where imprisonment is justified, its term must be fixed without regard to whether it will be suspended. The court has an absolute discretion whether to suspend imprisonment for contempt. Serious violence or threats, relevant previous conduct, absence of admission or remorse, and an improper attitude to the proceedings may justify immediate custody. An appellate court will not intervene merely because it might have imposed a shorter or suspended sentence. Intervention requires a sentence that is manifestly excessive or rests on an error of principle.

William Flatt appealed as of right against a sentence of four months’ imprisonment imposed by Mr Recorder Bleasdale QC in the Birmingham County Court on 21 May 2008. The sentence followed findings, after a three-day hearing, that he breached an anti-social behaviour injunction by driving at a neighbour to frighten him and by contriving false obstruction allegations against another visitor.

The appeal challenged both the length of the custodial sentence and the refusal to suspend it. The central issues were whether imprisonment was justified, whether four months was manifestly excessive, and whether the sentence should have been suspended.

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed. Lord Justice Carnwath and Lord Justice Jacob agreed with Lord Justice Tuckey’s judgment.
2. Imprisonment for breach. Imprisonment is not the automatic consequence of breaching an injunction. Hale v Tanner [2000] 2 FLR 879, although decided in the context of family cases, supplied general guidance applicable to contempt cases more generally. The court recognised the common practice of taking another course on a first occasion, but that guidance did not prevent imprisonment where the breach was sufficiently serious.
3. Length and suspension. If imprisonment is appropriate, the term must be fixed without taking account of whether the sentence may be suspended. The court has an absolute discretion whether to suspend a sentence for contempt, and there are no guiding principles governing suspension in such cases.
4. Application. The principal breach involved deliberately frightening a neighbour with a vehicle and caused physical pain and serious alarm. The appellant also had a recent history of violence or threats, had denied the breaches, showed no remorse, and displayed a poor attitude towards the proceedings. The court rejected the suggestion that the breaches followed a long period of compliance. A community order was unavailable for contempt.
5. Sentence. Four months’ imprisonment was at the top end of the available range, but was not manifestly excessive. The recorder was entitled to impose immediate custody and not to suspend it. The appellate court would not substitute its own view merely because it might have imposed a lesser sentence.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal dismissed against the sentence imposed below.
2. Birmingham County Court: Mr Recorder Bleasdale QC imposed four months’ imprisonment on 21 May 2008 for breaches of an anti-social behaviour injunction.