Doey v London Borough of Islington

When sentencing for breach of an antisocial behaviour injunction, a civil court should take account of the Sentencing Guidelines Council guidance for breach of an antisocial behaviour order, although the guidance formally concerns criminal sentencing. The guidelines guide the assessment but are not rigid rules. Voluntary drunkenness is normally aggravating rather than mitigating, and a contemnor cannot rely on self-induced impairment of perception or foresight to reduce culpability. The seriousness of a breach may be assessed by reference to its nature, context, previous breaches, timing and targeting of protected persons. A custodial sentence within the permissible range and consistent with the guidelines will not be disturbed merely because the contemnor wishes to remain at home for treatment.

The appellant, a tenant, had been subject to an antisocial behaviour injunction protecting neighbouring residents from nuisance, annoyance and harassment. He admitted breaching the injunction by shouting abuse and making a shooting gesture accompanied by a shooting noise. The Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court imposed 16 weeks’ imprisonment, after taking a 24-week starting point and allowing credit for his admissions, and activated an earlier suspended sentence to run concurrently.

He appealed on the grounds that the sentencing judge had failed to apply the Sentencing Guidelines, reached a decision no properly directed tribunal could reach, and gave disproportionate weight to the neighbours’ rights. The central issue was whether the sentence was legally flawed or outside the permissible range.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the 16-week custodial sentence.

1. The appeal was brought under section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. Under rule 52.3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, permission to appeal was unnecessary.
2. The Sentencing Guidelines Council guidance entitled Breach of an Antisocial Behaviour Order, though formally directed to criminal sentencing, was applicable when a civil court sentenced for breach of an antisocial behaviour injunction. The court relied on Amicus Horizon Limited v Thorley [2012] EWCA Civ 817.
3. The guidelines were guidelines rather than rigid rules. The sentencing judge was entitled to place the breach at the top of the lesser category or at the boundary between that category and the serious category. The admitted shooting gesture and accompanying noise indicated an intention to cause considerable alarm or distress, particularly in the context of the earlier harassment.
4. Drunkenness was normally an aggravating factor in this type of case. The appellant could not rely on voluntarily drinking alcohol to reduce culpability by blunting his perception, foresight or intention.
5. The judge was entitled to take account of the previous breach, the fact that the new breach occurred shortly after the injunction, the earlier breach proceedings arising from the same order, and the targeting of a person whom the injunction protected. No relevant mitigating or personal mitigating factor was established.
6. The neighbours had a right to live in their home without nuisance or harassment. The appellant had no right to cause such conduct. Separate possession proceedings and the proposed eviction were distinct from the sentence for contempt and did not require a different result. The sentence was proper, within the permissible range and in line with the guidelines.

Order: Appeal dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the 16-week sentence for breach of the antisocial behaviour injunction.
2. Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court — On 13 November 2012, the appellant admitted the breaches. The court imposed 16 weeks’ imprisonment and activated an earlier suspended sentence concurrently.