Amicus Horizon Ltd v Thorley

Sentencing guidelines for breaches of antisocial behaviour orders in criminal proceedings are equally relevant when a civil court punishes breach of an antisocial behaviour injunction. The sentence should reflect the degree of harassment, alarm or distress actually caused.

A court may consider related breaches collectively when deciding whether the custody threshold has been crossed. Past misconduct, offending while on bail and the need to protect residents from further harassment may justify immediate custody. Even where custody is warranted, a sentence materially exceeding the guideline range for the conduct is excessive and may be reduced on appeal.

A social landlord obtained an interim antisocial behaviour injunction during possession proceedings against an assured tenant. The county court subsequently made a possession order and found, to the criminal standard, that the tenant had committed four breaches of the injunction. The breaches involved entering a prohibited residents’ lounge and using abusive or threatening language towards residents and an employee.

His Honour Judge Hollis imposed concurrent terms producing an overall sentence of four months’ imprisonment. The appeal concerned whether immediate custody was justified and whether its length properly reflected the seriousness and consequences of the breaches.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. The Court of Appeal substituted an overall sentence of six weeks’ imprisonment for the concurrent sentences producing a four-month term. Toulson LJ gave the judgment, with which the Master of the Rolls agreed.
2. The definitive Sentencing Guidelines Council guidelines for breaches of antisocial behaviour orders, although directed to criminal proceedings, were equally relevant when an antisocial behaviour order or injunction had been made by a civil court. The sentencing bands depended on the gravity of the harassment, alarm or distress caused. Conduct causing no actual harassment, alarm or distress ordinarily attracted a community-order recommendation, while conduct causing a lesser degree attracted a range from a community order to 26 weeks’ custody, with a six-week starting point.
3. The four-month sentence was excessive. The conduct fell overall at the lower end of the category involving a lesser degree of harassment, alarm or distress, and some breaches fell outside that category. Merely entering the prohibited lounge did not justify two months’ imprisonment. The four-month terms for shouting at residents and threatening an employee who was not in fact intimidated or fearful were significantly outside the guidelines.
4. The breaches could nevertheless be assessed collectively when determining whether the custody threshold had been crossed. Immediate imprisonment was open to the judge because of the tenant’s history, the commission of later breaches while on bail and the legitimate need to protect residents from further stress and harassment. A suspended sentence was therefore not required merely because this was a first custodial sentence for breach.
5. The court imposed six weeks for each breach that had attracted four months and two weeks for each breach that had attracted two months. All terms were concurrent and ran from the date of re-arrest and remand in custody.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted concurrent terms producing an overall sentence of six weeks’ imprisonment: [2012] EWCA Civ 817.
2. Hastings County Court: His Honour Judge Hollis found four breaches of an interim antisocial behaviour injunction to the criminal standard and imposed concurrent sentences producing an overall term of four months’ imprisonment. The neutral citation of that decision is not stated.