Man jailed for second time for breaching anti-social behaviour injunction
A Bristol man has been jailed for three months for persistently breaching an anti-social behaviour injunction.
In Bristol City Council v Hill [2015] EW Misc B35 the local authority applied for the committal of Adrian Hill, the defendant, for breaching an injunction order made on 24 April 2015 (as amended by an order made on 12 June 2015).
The 24 April order forbade Hill from:
1. Sitting, loitering or approaching people for the purposes of begging anywhere in the City of Bristol.
2. Approaching a named individual in any way.
The 23 June order added a further clause prohibiting the defendant from a designated area including the Clifton Village and Queen's Road, Clifton areas of Bristol.
A warrant for Hill’s arrest was issued on 5 June 2015 which lead to a hearing on 17 July when he was committed to prison for 6 weeks for breaches of the order. The defendant was released from prison on 6 August 2015.
Bristol City Council then alleged that Hill had made further breaches of the order.
On 21 August a warrant for his arrest was issued. He was arrested on 26 August and remanded on bail to appear at Bristol Magistrates Court on 28 August.
Hill failed to appear on that occasion, the hearing was adjourned to 18 September and a further warrant for his arrest was issued.
The defendant was arrested again on 15 September and released on bail to attend the Bristol County Court on 18 September. However, he failed to attend.
The court adjourned proceedings as it was not satisfied Hill had been served with notice of the hearing. The defendant was then served personally with notice of the rescheduled hearing on 23 September. Again he failed to appear at court.
Deputy District Judge Orme decided to proceed with the committal application in his absence.
Having heard and read evidence from witnesses, the judge said he was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was in breach of the order.
The defendant had been found in the prohibited area on 29 occasions between 6 August and 15 September and on 19 of which he was begging.
DDJ Orme said: “It is the quantity and persistent nature of the breaches which make the breach of the order so serious rather than the individual nature of each breach. The defendant appears to have deliberately ignored the terms of the order and all attempts to assist him mend his ways.”
The judge said that he had considered the sentencing guidelines for breach of an anti-social behaviour order.
Although the individual breaches were relatively minor, he said, they were aggravated by:
(a) the persistent nature of the breaches and the defendant's apparent reluctance to have any regard to the terms of the order;
(b) the fact that the breaches started only two days after Hill was released from prison following committal for previous breaches;
(c) that the defendant had already been punished for breaches of the same order which were of the same nature.
DDJ Orme said: “The defendant shows no signs of being prepared to engage with the authorities or those that may be able to help him. In the circumstances a community order would not be appropriate and I see no alternative other than a custodial sentence and I consider that the appropriate terms is 3 months for each breach to run concurrently.”
