Sandwell MBC & Ors v Vaz

For a deliberate and dangerous breach of an injunction, the court may impose an immediate custodial sentence where the custody threshold is crossed. The court must then decide whether justice requires immediate custody or whether suspension will provide an adequate deterrent. Relevant considerations include the seriousness of the conduct, the risk and harm caused, aggravating features, the offender’s personal circumstances, dependants and employment, and any likely sentence for related criminal offences. A suspended sentence may be made conditional on compliance with the injunction, with a further breach exposing the offender to activation of the suspended term.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council and other authorities applied to commit Filipe Miguel Guerreiro Vaz for breaching an injunction restraining participation in car cruising within the Black Country area. The injunction prohibited participation in defined activities involving two or more vehicles, including racing, speeding and driving in convoy, where specified risks or consequences arose.

Mr Vaz admitted that he had raced his vehicle at excessive speed within the prohibited area. The court therefore considered the appropriate sentence for the admitted breach, including whether the custody threshold was crossed and whether any custodial sentence should be suspended.

1. Committal and seriousness. The admitted conduct amounted to a breach of the injunction. It involved racing and excessive speed, a modified vehicle, danger to spectators and other road users, nuisance, and an attempt to evade the police. Mr Vaz knew of the injunction and acted without regard to its potential consequences.
2. Custody threshold and suspension. The seriousness of the breach meant that the custody threshold had been crossed. The court had to determine whether the interests of justice required immediate custody or whether suspension would provide sufficient deterrence. The aggravating features were balanced against Mr Vaz’s admission, apology, character evidence, full-time employment and responsibilities towards his partner, children and stepchildren.
3. Sentence. By a narrow margin, the court concluded that suspension was appropriate. It imposed six months’ imprisonment, suspended until 1 February 2018, on condition that Mr Vaz comply with the injunction for the remainder of its term. A further proved breach would be likely to lead to activation of the suspended sentence, in addition to any sentence for the further breach.
4. Related criminal proceedings. The sentence concerned the injunction breach only. The court took into account that Mr Vaz faced dangerous-driving charges arising from his attempt to flee and intended to plead guilty, with a significant sentence likely to follow.
5. Costs. Exercising its discretion, the court ordered Mr Vaz to pay £500 towards Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council’s costs within 14 days.