[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	English and Welsh Courts - Miscellaneous
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> English and Welsh Courts - Miscellaneous >> The Wrekin Housing Trust v Davies [2015] EW Misc B38 (CC) (14 September 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2015/B38.html Cite as: [2015] EW Misc B38 (CC)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE TELFORD COUNTY COURT

		Telford Square Malinsgate Telford
		14th September 2015

Monday 14^th September 2015

THE WREKIN HOUSING TRUST – v – HOLLY DAVIES JUDGMENT

DISTRICT JUDGE ROGERS:

1. The hearing with which I have been concerned today involves two parties, the Wrekin Housing Trust as the applicant or claimant, on the one hand, and Miss Holly Davies, the defendant or respondent on the other. It relates to a series of incidents or alleged incidents in which the Trust allege that Miss Davies has been responsible for violent and abusive behaviour towards a tenant of theirs who has now, with their assistance no doubt, been able to leave the area and thus the immediate location of the incidents which have caused concern in the past, that being Mr Andrew Morris.
2. The hearing today is in relation to two separate but linked matters. First, the order which I am concerned with arises from a Without Notice injunction obtained by the Trust against the defendant on 9^th July. On that occasion his Honour Judge Main QC made a form of order which is in the bundle and is in what might be described as the conventional antisocial behaviour terms, albeit that it was granted under the auspices or under the provisions of section 1 of the Antisocial Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014. The question for me today is whether that order, being an interim or meanwhile order, should be continued, and, if so, in what terms, and for how long. As I explained to Miss Davies, and I believe she understands, my consideration of that application has to be on the basis of applying a standard of proof known as the civil standard of proof; in other words, am I satisfied that it is more likely than not that the matters alleged that gave rise to the injunction have been made out.
3. Those matters are an allegation that Miss Davies, the defendant, having been apparently reported for playing loud music at her flat not far away from the property occupied by Mr Morris, she approached him in the street, she abused him, she accused him of, as she put it, "grassing" her up and punched him in the face. It is thereafter alleged that she sent him various messages asking whether he was going to report her for an offence and also she repeated to a housing officer who saw her about this matter that she would indeed smash his face in. Those are abbreviated versions of the allegations on which the application for a Without Notice order was made.
4. During the course of this afternoon, Miss Davies, who has represented herself with some assistance initially from her mental health worker, to whom I shall refer again in a moment and latterly her mother, acknowledges that the injunction is likely and can continue albeit modified because now that Mr Morris has left the area the Trust no longer seeks an exclusion order, excluding her from the property adjacent to Mr Morris's property and also they no longer seek a power of arrest.
5. So far as that is concerned, I am satisfied on the evidence, on the balance of probabilities that the Trust has, through the evidence of Mr Morris and the housing officers from whom I have heard, made out its case. I accept the evidence of Caroline Higgs and of Chandra Price as well as the evidence of Mr Morris in relation to matters giving rise to the injunction and, subject to confirmation of the wording, I propose to continue the injunction for a period of 18 months from today.
6. The second and, arguably, the more serious matter and certainly more serious in terms of what happens in the short and medium term to Miss Davies, is that this is the culmination of I think no fewer than four or five previous arrests by the police of Miss Davies for alleged breaches of the injunction. Miss Davies, having initially denied all of them in large part, during the course of this morning had a chance to speak to her mental health support worker Mr Bell and Mr Bell has been with her on more than one of the occasions when she has been brought to court and I am sorry that he is not here this afternoon for me to thank him for his assistance to Miss Davies. So far as I understand the evidence, there is no mental health issue affecting Miss Davies' capacity in relation to these proceedings and indeed, if I may say so, she has managed to conduct them remarkably well this afternoon given the ammunition ranged against her and the strain under which she must have been operating.
7. During the course of this morning there was an indication that Miss Davies would accept some element of some of the allegations made. In the event when the matters were put to her individually before lunch there was in fact little, if any, acknowledgement of any serious matter and, accordingly, I have had to hear during the course of this afternoon the evidence formally of Mr Morris and the evidence of Miss Davies.
8. So far as Mr Morris is concerned, so far as the papers reveal, he is a man of entirely good character, and of the defendant's determination that he is in some way a danger to children there is no evidence whatsoever to support such allegations. It is quite clear, and indeed the defendant admits, that she, having initially been a friend of the family, has little regard for him now. That does not of course mean as a fact that she has broken the injunction. If I am to deal with her for any breaches of the injunction I have to be satisfied, as I explained to her during the course of this morning and I repeated again this afternoon, not merely to the civil standard but to the criminal standard of proof; in other words, I must be sure that she has done what it is that is alleged against her.
9. What is alleged against Miss Davies appears from a number of affidavits sworn by Mr Morris and confirmed in his evidence on oath before me today. He has sworn and I have read and have borne in mind five affidavits on 24^th July, 6^th August, 25^th August, 7^th September and the last as recently as 11^th September. Mr Morris, as I say, confirmed his evidence as set out in those affidavits from the witness box on oath. Perhaps understandably Miss Davies was not in a position or did not feel able to ask him any specific questions and therefore the case proceeded after the conclusion of Mr Morris's evidence by Miss Davies telling me what she wished to say.
10. She told me in general terms to start with about walking her dog on 12^th July, about an incident that day when her mother had gone to the house and had been abused, she said, by Mr Morris and his father and then she went on to say, "The statements he has given are not all the truth." There are, she went on to tell me, no old neighbours and she denied having gone round, as she put it, and kicked off in front of a young child. They have now moved, according to the evidence of Mr Morris in his most recent statement. He and his father have had to move away because of the alleged behaviour of Miss Davies. She says, "They have not moved because of me. They moved because of the bedroom tax." She repeated that she had been friends with the Morris's at one stage and if, as she put it, he was so scared (as he alleged he was) as to be unable to leave the house, he would not have been able to go to work or to go to the shops. She admitted that she had been in the exclusion zone on an occasion whilst getting into her mother's car. I should add here, as I understand the geography, that the car park on which Miss Davies' mother quite properly parked is adjacent to and overlooked by the property previously occupied by Mr Morris.
11. She acknowledged that she had created or posted messages on Facebook for which she had been prosecuted and received a conditional discharge by the magistrates' court in Telford very recently but she denied absolutely and continued to deny that a posting of two messages subsequent to that conviction was anything to do with her, notwithstanding, as was put to her in cross-examination, that the police, having carried out an examination of the address which backed up the Facebook account, which is not the same Facebook account that she had admitted using for which she was convicted, was an address known as [email protected] or .uk. She said that that is not her address. She said that it is not the language that she uses and she said that she knows nothing about it.  The Wrekin Housing Trust, through Miss Hooton, say (and these are my words and not Ms Hooton's) that that is frankly incredible, unbelievable and that I should be satisfied so that I am sure that Miss Davies is indeed the creator or, if not the creator, the instigator of that account.
12. So far as Mr Morris is concerned, I have of course had little or no opportunity to see him answer questions under cross-examination. That does not mean that there is any criticism to be made of Miss Davies and it does not mean that his evidence must inevitably be accepted. That said, however, when he did answer questions and when he gave his evidence from the witness box and was willing to come to court (as he has on a number of occasions to stand by the complaints made to the police and in his witness statements and affidavits), he appeared to me to give his evidence entirely straight forwardly and I accept what he said.
13. So far as the defendant, Miss Davies is concerned, whilst I accept that she had found herself, as she put it, with her head all over the place before the injunction was granted and indeed subsequently on at least one occasion, I cannot accept that she has either been entirely truthful or possibly properly recollected what has happened. Where there is a difference between the two, I am satisfied so that I am sure that Mr Morris has told me the truth and that Miss Davies has not.
14. I deal specifically with the breaches and say the following; in relation to the first breach it is alleged that the very day of the injunction at 1545 hours, she, having been served half an hour previously, the defendant verbally abused Mr Morris, shouting, "Oi, Andrew, oi, Andrew, are you happy with yourself, you little shit, you fucking git." Miss Davies initially denied that but subsequently acknowledged that she had done so. She denied it this morning but admitted it this afternoon and of course on that admission I find that she has indeed breached the injunction as alleged.
15. On 12^th July it is alleged that she breached the injunction at 1735 hours by entering the exclusion zone by walking past the address of Mr Morris. To that allegation much the same applies as the previous one. Miss Davies denied having done that this morning but in this afternoon's cross-examination she said she was confused but admitted that she had been there. It is right to observe in relation to that that this was before the matter came before District Judge Chapman at which time the plan was slightly modified but after the time at which (I accept the evidence of the housing officer concerned) the plan had been explained as had the terms of the injunction to Miss Davies.
16. The third breach alleges, I having been satisfied so that I am sure in relation to the second, that at 2050 hours that day, 12^th July (so this is less than three days after service of the injunction, within two and a half days) Mr Morris returned home to find the defendant leaving the front of his address, having set light to some papers and having thrown the burnt – and I do not say that I find it was burning – court papers on to his garden. The allegation continues that he crossed the street but was accosted by the defendant who punched him in the face and said, "What are you going to do now? Call the police." The police attended and found the court papers belonging to the defendant, some of which were scorched. This morning again the defendant denied having burned or indeed initially thrown the torn up injunction papers on the property but latterly this morning, if I recall correctly, she did admit having thrown the injunction papers on the property but denied having burned them and then this afternoon under cross-examination she acknowledged that she had indeed burned them, as she put it, "a little bit."
17. She denies, however, against that background of denial, admission, denial, admission, having assaulted Mr Morris, the denial being based not only on her asserting that she had done no such thing but on the fact that she says there was no mark to be seen on Mr Morris either by her or by her mother. There is a photograph in the bundle which I have to say is less than clear but, having regard to my assessment of the character of Mr Morris as opposed to the character of Miss Davies, I am entirely satisfied and am sure that as he alleges she did punch him in the nose on that occasion.
18. So far as the fourth breach alleged is concerned, it is alleged that the defendant had been seen inside the exclusion zone at about 1730 hours and then inside the back garden at 1810 hours at which time Mr Morris told her, "You shouldn't be in here," and she then became aggressive saying that she was going to punch Mr Morris's father. As to that, the defendant admits that she was there but denies having made any threat to assault Mr Morris's father, asserting that she was being accosted by Mr Morris's father and thought that he was going to hit her so she asked whether he was going to slap her. I do not accept that evidence. I accept the evidence of the complainant, Mr Morris, and find so that I am sure that she has behaved as he had told me.
19. The fifth breach is alleged to have taken place on 5^th August at about 1215 hours. That appears in the second affidavit of Mr Morris and I accept his evidence. I am satisfied so that I am sure that on this occasion also Miss Davies was inside the exclusion zone at 1215 hours as indeed she was on her own admission under breach 6 at 2030 hours that evening. As a follow on from that latter allegation, the complaint is that the defendant saw Mr Morris's father in his property at that point, she at this stage being in her mother's car parked in the area concerned, the exclusion zone, and is alleged to have said, "What the fuck you looking at?" It is then asserted that the defendant's mother knocked on Mr Morris's door – that much appears to be accepted by the defendant – and abused Mr Morris's father whilst the defendant stood in the street, it is alleged, shouting abuse and swearing calling the two men "perverts" and threatening to smack Mr Morris's face in. Once again the defendant denies this and I do not accept that she is telling me the truth about this. I am quite satisfied on the evidence that I have heard that she did indeed make those threats to Mr Morris and indeed to his father.
20. The eighth breach alleged is no longer pursued by the Wrekin Housing Trust and I say no more about it. On 29^th August, the ninth breach alleged, asserts that the defendant was inside the exclusion zone and is alleged to have shouted at Mr Morris, "I know you're fucking going to report me but I'm looking for my dog." I accept, despite her denial, Mr Morris's evidence that she was indeed inside the exclusion zone on that occasion. There is no reason why Mr Morris, in my judgment, would make up a false allegation along that line in contrary to the defendant's behaviour which has been throughout first to deny things and then to admit pieces of them.
21. On 24^th August, breach number 10, it is alleged and admitted that the defendant was in the exclusion zone and shouted to Mr Morris, "Go on then, phone the police," and later on that day it is alleged and denied that the defendant approached Mr Morris outside the local shop and said, "You fucking wait, how does it feel to lose." In relation to that, Mr Morris's evidence is as set out in his affidavits. The defendant alleges that she had gone to the shop not expecting to find Mr Morris there. Mr Morris had come in, he had picked something up from the shelf and had gone to be served, to be told by the assistant, "I am not going to serve you." He had then left and she says that was the last she knew about it because he had gone by the time he came out of the shop. He says that when she came out she said to him, as I have indicated, "You fucking wait, how does it feel to lose," and that, it seems to me, is entirely understandable given that Mr Morris had lost the opportunity to purchase what he wanted to buy and quite apart from the fact that I accept overall so that I am sure that Mr Morris is telling me the truth, that, too, entirely fits with the allegation of the defendant saying, "How does it feel to lose."
22. Breach 12 alleged against the defendant, followed closely by breach 13, are photographs and messages posted on Facebook admittedly by the defendant. The first is alleged to have said, "Everyone beware this lad Andrew Morris, he is a paedo, keep him away from your children," and breach 13 some little time later, she posted another photograph on Facebook with the comment, "Keep your kids away from this gay Paedo, Andrew Morris, please, the guy is disturbed." The defendant admits that allegation. She had already admitted in the magistrates' court sending a malicious electronic communication for which she was given a conditional discharge. So far as I understand it, however, that was a malicious communication and not a charge of sending or threatening abusive behaviour or language which was withdrawn by the prosecution. So I find in light of the admissions the breach proved so that I am sure in relation to those messages.
23. The last matter relied on by the Trust is in a further statement from Mr Morris in which he alleges that someone known using a Facebook account with the name of Amy Lou, after the conviction on her own admission of the defendant for sending malicious communications, posted two further messages and photographs, the first of which was a photograph of Mr Morris with a dragon painted on the photographs and said, "Please keep your children away from this guy, Andrew Morris, he runs a group that needs a bullet in his twisted sick head," and, secondly, a text posting, "Beware of this lad, folks, he's a complete freak," and various other matters which I do not need to go into in the course of this judgment. There is then a message effectively that the defendant admits that she posted agreeing to that saying, "Good, he's wrecked my life so I'll wreck his."
24. Miss Davies in relation to the Amy Lou account denies that that is hers. The police, having begun I assume an enquiry as a result of an apparent breach of the conditional discharge conditions, appear to have established (and I say appear to have established because there is no direct evidence other than a witness statement from the police officer and the officer has not been called) that that Facebook account emanates from an email address which I have indicated is hollydavies849@yahoo. Miss Davies flatly denies that she has anything to do with that account. It is not her email address, she says, there are a number of people who don't like her and there are a number of people who got in touch with her who have their own views about Mr Morris.
25. Whilst I think that there is strong ground for believing that Miss Davies was, if not the poster of that message or those messages, involved in their posting, I am unable in the circumstances and on the extent of the evidence before me to be satisfied so that I am sure that she was responsible for that or that the posting of it was in any other way a breach of the injunction.
26. It follows, therefore, that I am quite satisfied so that I am sure, having heard the evidence and having read the statements and having considered all the evidence and the documents, that the defendant is in breach of the injunction in each of the breaches set out in the schedule and in particular counsel's skeleton argument with the exception of breach number 8 which is no longer pursued and breach number 14 about which I am not satisfied to the criminal standard.