Christopher Lovett v Wigan Borough Council

Sentencing for breach of an anti-social behaviour injunction prioritises future compliance, followed by punishment and rehabilitation. Criminal sentencing guidelines have only broad relevance, save in special circumstances. Courts should assess culpability and harm separately, using the Civil Justice Council’s indicative civil framework, then consider aggravation and mitigation. Custody is reserved for serious breaches or cases where other methods have failed. Any custodial term must be the shortest sufficient term, with regard to totality.

When sentencing has been adjourned, defendants need not prove compliance. Without evidence of further breach or other relevant bad conduct, the eventual sentence should usually be less severe than initially contemplated. Failure to transcribe and publish a committal judgment is a serious irregularity but does not itself justify allowing a sentence appeal.

The court heard three related appeals concerning contempt sanctions for breaches of injunctions under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Christopher Lovett was subject to an injunction obtained by Wigan Borough Council which included an overnight exclusion from his home. After numerous earlier breaches and unsuccessful challenges to the injunction, Judge Sephton found 21 further breaches and imposed concurrent custodial terms of 30 weeks. Lovett appealed those findings and applied to set aside an order striking out renewed challenges to the injunction and other grounds.

Gemma Hopkins, a tenant of Optivo who had fled domestic violence, admitted one breach involving shouting outside her home. The remaining allegations were abandoned. District Judge Coonan adjourned sentencing, indicating a suspended custodial term of 28 days, and later imposed that term because Hopkins had produced no evidence of compliance. Her appeal challenged the severity of the sentence and the considerations used to impose it.

Isaac Smith, a physically disabled tenant of Network Homes Limited, was found by Deputy District Judge Althaus to have committed nine noise-related breaches. He received 12 weeks’ imprisonment suspended for 12 months. His appeal raised publication of the judgment, possession as an alternative remedy, legal aid and the sentence imposed. The Hopkins and Smith appeals were transferred from the County Court to the Court of Appeal. The common issue was the proper approach to sanctions for breaches of anti-social behaviour injunctions, alongside the procedural and evidential questions arising in each appeal.

1. Lovett’s appeal and set-aside application were dismissed. Hopkins’s appeal was allowed and her suspended sentence replaced with no order. Smith’s appeal was allowed as to sentence, substituting one month’s imprisonment suspended for the same 12-month period. The court delivered one joint judgment.

2. Sanctions for breach of an injunction under Part 1 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 serve, in order, future compliance, punishment and rehabilitation. Civil contempt differs materially from criminal sentencing in its objectives, available sanctions and maximum custodial term. Save in special circumstances, such as a breach constituting a criminal offence, current criminal sentencing guidelines have only broad relevance. A civil sentence equalling or exceeding the corresponding criminal guideline sentence is generally likely to be wrong (paras 32–39).

3. The available disposals are immediate or suspended committal, adjourned consideration, a fine and no order. Custody should be reserved for the most serious breaches or cases where other methods of securing compliance have failed. Courts must consider sufficient alternatives, totality and the shortest adequate custodial term; its length is determined before suspension is considered. The statutory maximum is two years, with automatic release after half the term, which must be considered when allowing credit for remand (paras 40–44).

4. The Civil Justice Council’s culpability-and-harm framework was endorsed as useful general guidance, without the authority of statutory sentencing guidelines. For the highest category, the starting point is six months, with a range of eight weeks to 18 months. Adjustments require identified reasons, and departures from indicative ranges require cogent reasons. Sentencing remains a fact-sensitive exercise requiring a just and proportionate outcome (paras 46–57).

5. Adjournment should be accompanied by clear explanations of the consequences of subsequent conduct. Without evidence of further breach or other relevant bad conduct, the eventual sentence should usually be less severe. Hopkins bore no burden to prove compliance, and abandoned allegations could not justify treating her admitted breach as a harmful course of conduct. Her case fell at most within B3, for which adjourned consideration was the starting point (paras 45, 61–66).

6. Publication under rule 81.8(8) primarily serves open justice; delayed transcription does not itself justify overturning a sentence. Possession is a separate statutory remedy requiring possession proceedings, rather than an alternative contempt penalty. Smith had legal representation throughout, so his legal-aid eligibility did not invalidate the hearing. His sentence nevertheless rested on an erroneous criminal starting point; the appropriate B2 starting point was one month (paras 67–78).

7. Lovett’s renewed validity challenge was an abusive collateral attack and could not be pursued through his committal appeal. Earlier-dated breaches could be entertained unless the failure to raise them previously amounted to abuse of process. The judge was entitled to accept the copied video evidence despite its shortcomings, and no infringement of fair-trial rights was established. No separate sentence challenge required determination (paras 87–95).

• Court of Appeal: In [2022] EWCA Civ 1631 , dismissed Lovett’s appeal from the July 2022 committal order and his application to set aside Andrews LJ’s order of 6 October 2022. Allowed Hopkins’s sentence appeal and substituted no order. Allowed Smith’s appeal as to sentence and substituted one month’s custody, suspended for the same 12-month period.
• High Court: In earlier Lovett proceedings, Knowles J dismissed an appeal against Recorder McLoughlin’s committal order of 23 July 2020 on 30 April 2021. That decision was not appealed to the Court of Appeal and was not the decision under appeal here.
• County Court at Manchester: Following trial on 11–13 July 2022, Judge Sephton found Lovett in breach on 21 occasions and imposed concurrent terms of 30 weeks, also concurrent with Recorder McLoughlin’s existing custodial sentence. Earlier challenges to the injunction and the April 2022 committal order had failed.
• County Court at Willesden: On 11 August 2022, Deputy District Judge Althaus found nine breaches by Smith and imposed 12 weeks’ imprisonment suspended for 12 months. Smith appealed to the County Court at Central London, where Judge Luba transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeal.
• County Court at Croydon: District Judge Coonan adjourned Hopkins’s sentencing on 29 October 2021 and imposed 28 days’ imprisonment suspended on 1 August 2022. Her appeal was transferred to the County Court at Central London and then, by Judge Luba, to the Court of Appeal.