Two men given suspended sentences for breaching car-cruising injunction

Two men in the West Midlands have been given a suspended 28-day sentence for breaching an injunction on car cruising.

The committal application against Robert Darby and Mark Guest was brought by four local councils, principally Wolverhampton City Council.

Granted by His Honour Judge Robert Owen QC, sitting as a High Court judge, on 1 December 2014, the injunction prohibited anyone from participating in car cruising anywhere within the Black Country (the four authorities’ combined geographical area).

The incident leading to the case of Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v Darby & Anor [2016] EWHC B2 (QB) took place on Springvale Industrial Estate on 25 October 2015 at 9.30 pm. Darby, 25, was driving his car. Guest, 35, was in the passenger seat.

HHJ Worster heard the case on 7 January 2016. In a judgment published this week he noted: “[Two police officers on the scene] saw about 30 vehicles parked up in a layby. 30 vehicles parked up in a layby on the side of the Black Country route at 9:30pm in an area which was known as a hot spot for this sort of thing, were obviously waiting for things to happen. They were also causing an obstruction.

“When the police arrived, the 30 or so vehicles, there being 20 or so people standing in the layby, began to move off. The police officers pulled one of those vehicles over. It was in the middle of the convoy, as it was described, trying to leave the location. In that car were Mr Darby and Mr Guest. They were both entirely cooperative, with Mr Darby giving his name, his address, his date of birth and producing a full driving licence and Mr Guest similarly giving his details, although he does not drive.

“They were asked about their vehicle being in a road-racing convoy and were questioned about it being parked up on the side of a dual carriageway. Mr Darby denied all knowledge of a road-racing injunction covering the Black Country Route. He said he was driving his friend around and he had parked up to have a look at what was going on. The officers observed that both of them were calm and neither was obstructive when they were spoken to.”

The council subsequently commenced proceedings and made committal applications. The allegations were that the defendants “participated with a degree of knowledge with the car cruise, firstly, by being there; secondly, by being in a vehicle which was obstructing the highway; and thirdly, by driving off in a convoy when the police arrived.”

HHJ Worster said the reason for the injunction was obvious. “If anyone engaged in racing gave it a moment's thought, they would realise that it would cause significant concern to individual people on the route, and to those charged with keeping the streets safe.”

The judge said the defendants understood the serious nature of the allegations made against them and in admitting those allegations, they understood that the court would take a serious view.

“This is a matter where public safety is involved. This sort of activity needs to be stopped, and it is important that those who might be tempted to play their part in these events, whether as direct participants or as spectators, understand that not only is this dangerous and illegal, but that the court will take a serious view,” he added.

HHJ Worster said it seemed to him that the only appropriate sentence was a custodial sentence. He noted that in a previous case a sentence of three months was passed for somebody who was in the process of racing with another vehicle on the street.

“That was a more serious event than the one in which Mr Darby and Mr Guest were involved, although what would have happened had the police not turned up I do not know. It is not suggested that they were involved actually in anything as dangerous as racing, and I do not intend to deal with them on the basis that they were intending to,” the judge said.

He added that this was the first occasion in which the defendants had been involved in such a matter, and it was the first time that either of them had been involved in anything which would potentially carry a sentence of imprisonment. Guest told the court he had had some driving offences, and Darby was of good character.

HHJ Worster said: “In terms of a sentence after a trial, a period of six weeks would be appropriate. Given their plea, I reduce that by a third. So the sentence will be 28 days.

“In terms of suspension, both of them are in work, both of them have children for whom they have responsibility and they have been cooperative and frank. I take that into account, as I take into account the fact that they have apologised to the Court, and say they do not want to get involved in this sort of thing again.”

Those matters taken together justified suspending the sentence that was passed, HHJ Worster said.

“The custodial sentence underlines the serious nature of the matter, the fact that they have been committed and received the sentence is a warning to others. It seems to me that the best way to ensure that their conduct is not repeated is to suspend the sentence on terms that they comply with the injunction as made for the rest of its life, that is until February 2018,” the judge added.