Claim No:  B02BM455
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BIRMINGHAM

The Priory Courts
33 Bull Street
Birmingham B4 6DS

8th June 2016

Before:

HIS HONOUR JUDGE WORSTER
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL
Claimant
Local Authority

-v-

MR.  JOHN ALEXANDER
Defendant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Transcribed from the tape recording by Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd.,
1st Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP
Telephone No: 020 7067 2900.  Fax No: 020 7831 6864

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MISS ROBINS of counsel appeared for the Claimant Local Authority
MR. FOSTER, solicitor, appeared for the Defendant 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR JUDGE WORSTER: 
1.	Mr. Alexander, would you stand up, please. You were made the subject of an interim injunction just before Christmas and on the 9th, 12th and 13th of January you breached it.  “Loud music and banging”; “loud music and voices”, and then again “loud banging”. A moment's thought would have told you all of that would have a significant effect on your neighbour.  
2.	The case then came back to court on the 29th of January and a final order was made. That  was served on you. Then you breached that order twice. On the 24th of March you had some visitors at your flat; there were “loud voices”, and then on 8th of April again there was “loud banging and loud voices”.  
3.	The case was listed for a hearing today because you had denied some of those allegations. You have been well advised to have admitted those matters, and I give you considerable credit for doing that, even though it is at the last moment and even though it has meant that Ms Depper has been under the impression that she would have to give evidence about this matter until relatively recently.  
MR. ALEXANDER:  I didn't want Ms Depper to go through that.
4.	As your solicitor has made plain in the course of his submissions, this is a case where the court is looking at a custodial sentence.  Not a long one but, most certainly a custodial sentence. That is because of the effect this conduct has had on your neighbour, the fact that you must have known of that it would have that effect, and the repetition of that conduct, even after the service of a final order. It means that the case passes what courts refer to as "the custody threshold" -- in other words, a prison sentence is warranted.
5.	Mr. Foster has taken me to the Guidelines which are there to assist with the length of that sentence. For the purposes of today I accept what he says about the starting point and, as I have indicated, I am going to give you significant credit for your plea of guilty, even though it is later in the day than it should have been.  I do that because it is some indication that you might have begun to realise, not only the seriousness of your conduct towards Ms Depper, but also the seriousness of the position that you are in. And if you are honest with the court, then the court will give you credit for that.  
6.	It is vital that this conduct ends.  It is not just a question of apologising, although an apology is most welcome, and it is not just a question of a realisation of the seriousness of that conduct, it is a question of doing something about it.  Sometimes you need help to do that and you should be brave enough to accept that help when it is offered.  
7.	I have read the medical report that your solicitors have obtained from your GP and I recognise that you do have some problems. It is not for me to sort out those problems, it is for you, and you must ensure that those problems do not cause the sort of difficulties that they have been causing for other people.  
8.	I also give you credit for the fact that there has been improvement in the pattern of your behaviour since the granting of these injunctions, certainly from the information that I have seen.    
9.	I take into account the fact that at the age of fifty-eight this is the first time that you have faced the prospect of a sentence of imprisonment, and I take account of what I have read in the medical report.  
10.	The sentence that I pass upon you in total is one of six weeks imprisonment. That is made up of two parts; twenty-one days for the first three breaches concurrent, and then the twenty one days for the second two breaches concurrent, the two parts being consecutive. So three weeks for the first group plus three weeks for the second.  
11.	The main purposes of sentencing somebody in your position are, firstly, to punish you and, secondly, to prevent further breaches -  to try and ensure that you keep to the terms of the injunction. In doing that I have regard, of course, to rehabilitating you – and trying to keep you from breaking the law.  
12.	This is the first time you appear to be sentenced for breaches of this injunction, and because of that and because of your admissions and apology, I am able to suspend the sentence.  I am going to suspend it for a period of twelve-months on terms that you keep to the injunction.  So, if you keep to the injunction you will not have to serve that sentence. But if it is proved that you have breached that injunction, then the court can activate this sentence in addition to any sentence it might impose on a subsequent occasion. So it hangs over your head for a period of twelve-months.  It is an encouragement to you, if you like, to think, to control yourself and those who come to your property, and to recognise the effect all this has on your neighbours.  
13.	That is an appropriate sentence overall for the matters that you have admitted. It is the least period that I can properly sentence you to. You will understand, and a court will understand, if you do come back, that I have given you this chance because it is your first appearance.  The next time no-one will be able to say that on your behalf.
14.	So, six weeks suspended for a year on terms that you keep to the terms of that antisocial behaviour injunction.  Thank you. Do you want to sit down.  Is there anything else, other than costs?  
MISS ROBINS:  No, your Honour.  We would seek the costs of the application.
JUDGE: So costs of the application, subject to the legal aid caveat - not to be enforced …
MR. FOSTER:  Yes, not to be enforced without permission of the court, please.
JUDGE: Legal aid taxation, or whatever it is called, for your purposes.  
MR. FOSTER: Yes, the appropriate order in relation to the Criminal Contribution Regulations, your Honour, yes.
JUDGE:	Thank you both very much.