MANCHESTER CITY COUNCIL v IAN CALDERLEY-HARPER

Repeated and deliberate breaches of a clear injunction may justify an immediate custodial sentence. In fixing sentence, the court may treat an early admission as mitigation, but may also give substantial weight to the offender’s history of breaches, previous custodial sentences and prompt reoffending after release. Sentencing guidance assists the assessment, while the court must have regard to the limited sanctions available in the civil proceedings.

The claimant council alleged that the defendant had breached an injunction prohibiting him from entering the Arndale Centre. The defendant admitted two breaches, on 4 May and 10 May 2022.

The court considered his extensive history of breaches since October 2019, two previous custodial sentences, his drug difficulties, the immediate admissions and relevant sentencing guidance. The issue was the appropriate sanction for the admitted breaches.

1. The defendant was sentenced to 12 weeks’ imprisonment for the two admitted breaches of the injunction, with credit to be given for time already spent in custody.

2. The injunction was straightforward and readily understood. The defendant had repeatedly appeared before the court for breaches since October 2019. He had received previous custodial sentences and had returned to the prohibited location shortly after release. Those matters meant that the custody threshold was passed.

3. The court accepted that the defendant’s drug problems explained, but did not excuse, his conduct. It considered that a drug rehabilitation requirement might have helped, but such an order was not available to it and accommodation difficulties might in any event have arisen.

4. The court adopted a 12-week custodial starting point by reference to the stated culpability and category assessment. It reduced no further than was appropriate after allowing for the defendant’s immediate admission. It also considered the sentencing guidance, while recognising that the civil court could impose neither a community order nor the wider custodial powers available to magistrates.

not stated in the judgment.