Three men given suspended sentences for breaching car cruising injunction

Three men have been given suspended prison sentences for breaching an injunction against car cruising in Birmingham after the city council brought committal proceedings.

The injunction was granted on 3 October 2016 by His Honour Judge Worster, sitting as a judge of the High Court in Birmingham. It was addressed to persons unknown in these terms:

"All persons are forbidden from participating in a street cruise within the Claimant's local government area, known as the City of Birmingham, the boundaries of which are delineated in blue on a map attached to the order. It is also forbidden for anyone to promote, organise or publicise in any manner any street cruise within the defined geographical area as delineated in the map in schedule 1."

Birmingham City Council applied last month to commit three individuals – A.M Paul, T.S. Bhuee and Zafar Iqbal – to prison.

It was alleged by the local authority that on Sunday, 5 March 2017 at about 9.30 pm in the evening each of those individuals, in breach of the injunction, were, within the area delineated in blue on the map attached to the order, racing their respective vehicles.

Birmingham relied on witness statements in the form section 9 statements from three police officers who were present at the material time. An affidavit from an employee the council also set out in some detail the very considerable efforts made by the council to draw the general public's attention to the terms of the injunction.

In Birmingham City Council v Paul & Ors [2017] EWHC 1027 His Honour Judge McKenna, sitting as a High Court judge, said the court had also had the benefit of seeing a DVD showing a recording made in one of the police officer's vehicles of the three respondents and their vehicles.

“[The court]…..therefore has been able to identify that at the material time the road conditions were wet, it was dark and the speeds reached by the three respondents were in excess of 130 miles per hour, initially on a dual carriageway where the national speed limit is seventy miles an hour, but where at one point that speed limit as a result of the existence of road works is reduced from seventy to forty and then from forty to thirty,” the judge said.

“It is also fair to record that the three respondents can be seen to be slowing down and coming to a halt as soon as reasonably practicable after the police officer in the chasing vehicle switches on his blue light.”

All three respondents accepted the substance of the allegations made against them, that they were in breach and that they knew of the terms of the injunction.

HHJ McKenna said that on any view the conduct of the three respondents was "highly irresponsible".

“Their conduct in driving at excessive speed in the way that can be seen on the DVD is a serious breach of the injunction granted by His Honour Judge Worster and each of the respondents must have known that that was the case when they embarked on the course of conduct that they did,” he said.

HHJ McKenna also said it seemed to him that the three individuals were acting together as part of a group and were “clearly intent on deliberately flouting the terms of the injunction”; that was their common purpose. These were aggravating aspects of their conduct, he suggested.

The judge accepted that there was some mitigation in respect of each of the three respondents. All three had accepted the substance of the allegations made against them, effectively at the first available opportunity, and they were entitled to some credit for that. The judge also said that in each case it was a first offence, none of the respondents had a criminal record and that they were remorseful for their actions on the night.

HHJ McKenna also considered mitigation in respect of each of the individuals.

On the sentence, the judge said: “Given the very serious nature of the breaches, the very high speed at which all three vehicles were being driven by the three respondents, it seems to me that in respect of the allegation each respondent should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six-months.

“But for the mitigation which has been put forward, and to which I have referred and in particular the early admission and the lack of any previous breaches, the sentence would, in each case, have been nine-months.”

On the issue of whether or not the sentence should be immediate or suspended, the judge said that “by a narrow margin, and I say it is by a narrow margin”, having regard to the deterrence effect of such a sentence, he had concluded, in the light of the mitigation, that the sentence should be suspended in each case for the balance of the period of the injunction [that is to say until 24 October 2019] and on terms that each of the respondents comply for the future with the terms of the injunction.

“Each respondent should be in no doubt that if there is any further breach of the injunction proved to the requisite standard against them, in addition to any sentence that will be imposed by the court on that occasion, the suspended sentence which I impose today will be activated and therefore a lengthy sentence in prison can be expected,” the judge added.

HHJ McKenna added that in coming to the conclusions that he had as to sentence, he was aware of the fact that each of the three respondents was due to attend the magistrates' court on, he thought, 5th of June where they faced three separate charges, one of dangerous driving, one of driving without insurance and one of racing in a public place. “As I understand it, they have pleaded not guilty,” he said.

The judge continued: “The sentence I have imposed is in respect of the breach of the injunction granted by His Honour Judge Worster. It is a matter for the magistrates' court what sentence it imposes should the offences be proved, but, no doubt, the magistrates will be informed of the sentence which I have imposed today.”

HHJ McKenna also ordered that the defendants pay £750 each in costs to the city council.