Chief Constable West Midlands Police v L Wright & Anor.

In sentencing for admitted breaches of gang injunctions, the court must assess the breach by reference to its deliberateness, the defendant’s knowledge of the injunction, the harm caused and any relevant criminality. The seriousness of breach does not automatically require custody or activation of a suspended sentence. Where the breach is deliberate but causes very low harm, and the defendant complies with the injunction after an adjournment, the court may impose no further penalty. A suspended sentence remains in force unless activated; the fact of a further breach does not require activation where the circumstances and subsequent compliance make that inappropriate.

The Chief Constable sought sentencing orders against L Wright and Keanu Barnett for admitted breaches of gang injunctions. Mr Wright possessed five bags of cannabis, contrary to an injunction term, but the criminal matter was resolved by Community Resolution and there were no further breaches. Mr Barnett associated with a prohibited person, contrary both to his injunction and to a suspended prison sentence imposed for an earlier breach. The court adjourned sentencing in each matter to assess subsequent compliance. The central issues were whether the custody threshold had been crossed, whether any further penalty was required, and whether Mr Barnett’s suspended sentence should be activated.

1. Mr Wright. The possession of five bags of cannabis constituted a deliberate breach. Mr Wright knew the injunction’s terms, having previously breached them, but the harm was very low and there was no evidence of an intention to supply. The criminal matter had been resolved by Community Resolution, and there had been no further breach. In those circumstances, no further penalty was imposed.
2. Mr Barnett. Associating with a person named in the injunction constituted a deliberate category B breach. The breach also engaged the suspended prison sentence imposed for an earlier breach. However, there was no suggestion of further criminal activity or breach of another injunction term, and the harm was very low. Although breach of an injunction is serious because an injunction is made to be obeyed, the court was not satisfied that custody was required.
3. The adjournment of sentence enabled the court to take account of subsequent compliance. As Mr Barnett had committed no further alleged breach since the earlier hearing, it was inappropriate to activate the suspended sentence or impose an additional penalty. The suspended sentence remained in force, and another judge might take a different view on a future occasion.