Anti-social behaviour (ASB) takes many forms. It could be shouting, screaming, banging doors, swearing, playing loud music at night, disturbing the neighbours, using foul language, allowing rented property to become dilapidated, urinating or defecating in public.
It can cause misery, but it’s not criminal.
Once ASB has been found by a civil court (a County Court) the court may impose an ASB injunction. If the injunction is breached then the issue may come before the County Court again. If the Court finds the allegation has been proven to the criminal standard of proof, the judge has very limited options: to adjourn the hearing; take no action; impose a fine or impose a term of imprisonment of up to two years, either suspended or immediate.
None of the protections found under the criminal court are available: no pre-sentence reports; no probation support; no community orders.
Using the publicly available judicial site from January 2019 I have noted 422 cases. I found that sentences of imprisonment were imposed on very vulnerable people: on those found begging; sleeping rough; the mentally ill; some whose breach caused no ‘harm or inconvenience to any person’ and some whose misbehaviour appeared to be trivial, like feeding birds. Half the defendants had no lawyer to speak for them.
There was some judicial concern, and an inquiry. The Civil Justice Council report listed many cases of very vulnerable people, not present in court, and not represented, being sent to prison, in one case a woman for asking a traffic warden for 50p. The report pointed out that there were no statistics on the numbers of such imprisonments and no judicial oversight of the decisions. They made 15 recommendations; none were implemented.
No oversight of the courts
The process of quarterly review of imprisonment for contempt of court, instituted in 1830, continued until it was revoked by a decision of Chris Grayling in 2012. The protection provided by the review procedure then ceased to exist. (Sir James Mumby, Devon County Council v Kirk [2016] EWCA Civ 1221.)
You can complain about a judge’s behaviour. On 14th March 2025 I did so.
A decision at Peterborough County Court on 18th December 2024 ordered immediate imprisonment imposed on a homeless woman who had breached her injunction by entering proscribed premises and staying there.
This concerns a woman who, one can be sure, has had a traumatic past. She has experienced drug dependency, she’s sometimes been violent, she’s been in and out of prison. In December 2024, she was sent to prison for 78 weeks. She had recently been in prison for the same breach, and, immediately on leaving prison; she once again entered the YMCA and stayed there. She is long-term ‘No Fixed Abode’.
The sentence imposed was 18 months immediate imprisonment. This is an outrageous sentence, and follows a line of harsh sentencing of vulnerable people that simply should not happen.
By way of comparison:
- In a recent case, Luton Crown Court imposed a sentence of 14 months in prison on a man who admitted causing death by careless driving and causing death while uninsured or unlicensed.
- At Swansea Crown Court, on April 25 2024, Darren Nicholas was sentenced to 15 months in prison for assaulting his partner while she was pregnant and threatening the welfare of her unborn baby.
My complaint
On 18th December 2024, at the County Court at Peterborough, Peterborough Combined Court Centre, District Judge Falvey sentenced Jaqueline Reilly to an immediate custodial sentence of eighteen months for contempt of court. The basis of that sentence was that Ms Reilly, who has previous served sentences of imprisonment for similar breaches, on or shortly after her release from the most recent sentence returned to the YMCA, and slept in the common parts of the building, in breach of an injunction prohibiting her from doing so.
Disrespect was shown in imposing a sentence of 18 months for the breach of entering proscribed premises and taking shelter there; in my view the judge’s behaviour was seriously disrespectful. The state of being long-term no fixed abode is both a social problem and a personal tragedy. Imposing a relatively long prison sentence in these circumstances demonstrates a total lack of respect for the reality of the lives of those in our community who have been unable to secure housing. It is disrespectful to both the person in court for breach and to society in general to impose imprisonment in these circumstances.
The reply:
“We cannot accept your complaint. Your complaint concerns judicial decision-making, which … falls outside our remit.”
Wider issues
This case is just one of hundreds of examples of what we can call ‘Is It a Crime to Be Poor?’ This is the name of an alliance and a website where all are welcome to explore that question, to find resources, to read research reports and blogs: https://crimetobepoor.org
Students and others are welcome to contact me by email, below, and offer to write a blog for the site.
Rona is grateful to the Oakdale Trust for funding and supporting her research.
Leave a Reply