[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	English and Welsh Courts - Miscellaneous
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> English and Welsh Courts - Miscellaneous >> Birmingham City Council v Fellows [2015] EW Misc B12 (CC) (21 May 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2015/B12.html Cite as: [2015] EW Misc B12 (CC)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BIRMINGHAM

		The Priory Courts 33 Bull Street Birmingham B4 6DS
		21st May 2015

HIS HONOUR JUDGE WORSTER:

1. This matter is listed today for the hearing of a committal application. The Claimant is Birmingham City Council, the Defendant is Mr. Graham Thomas Fellows, who represents himself. The matter was adjourned last week by Mr. Recorder Tidbury to give Mr. Fellows an opportunity (I think at the Recorder's instigation, given what Mr. Fellows has told me) to take some legal advice. It appears that the firm who usually represent him in criminal matters are not able to represent him, and he has not been able to obtain any other legal assistance, and so he proceeds today. He wants the matter dealt with. He tells me - and I accept - that he wanted the matter dealt with last week when he was prepared to admit the matters against him and I will give him full credit for that.
2. He is a man with a number of convictions in the criminal courts. He has a number of prison sentences, although it is right to note that most are more than ten years ago now. He was last sentenced to imprisonment in a criminal court in any substantial way in 2011 when he received a sentence of sixteen-months. As he has told me in the course of his submissions, he is a man who is comfortable in prison.
3. From looking at his record and from reading the statements in this case, he is also a man who has some problems with alcohol, although he denies that he has a problem. Nonetheless, it is plain that alcohol plays its part, both in his offending and in his breaches of the antisocial behaviour order made by this court.
4. That Order was applied for by the council at the end of last year. A without notice order was made on 23^rd of December. It included provisions restraining him from abusing, harassing, intimidating, threatening or using violence against his former partner, Maria McCormack. I say "former partner", it appears from what he says that elements of their relationship continue. Miss McCormack lives at a property at 57 Bean Croft, and Mr. Fellows was also restrained by the terms of that injunction from entering those premises.
5. He was served with the injunction the same day, and arrested as a consequence of his conduct. That was not the first time that he breached this order. He was arrested again on 12^th of January 2015, again at number 57 Bean Croft. He was abusive to the police, threatening one with violence, and remanded in custody. A final antisocial behaviour order was made on 16^th of January. Mr. Fellows would have been present on that occasion for he was also sentenced to a period of two-months' imprisonment for his breaches of the order to that point.
6. He served that time (he would have served half) and was released. But on 18^th of March he was arrested again, again at 57 Bean Croft. He appeared before His Honour Judge Oliver-Jones QC the next day. He must have admitted a breach of the order on that occasion. The Judge recorded that there had been breaches of the order both in his entry of 57 Bean Croft and because he was abusive and threatening to the police. But he must have decided that it was worth taking a chance on the Defendant. He passed a prison sentence of three months in relation to the breaches, but suspended it to the end of the term of that order (that is 2017, I think) on the basis that Mr. Fellows complied with the terms of that injunction. A suspended sentence in common language. Mr. Fellows is bright enough and experienced enough to know what the consequences of breaching a suspended sentence are. I am sure he was under no illusion.
7. Regrettably, on 13^th of May he was arrested again at 57 Bean Croft by the police. To his credit, when he appeared before the court the next day he admitted the matter and wanted it dealt with. In one sense he had little option but to admit the matter, the police having arrested him at the property, but, as I say, I do give him credit for being straightforward with the court about it.
8. The seriousness of the breach on this occasion is not so much what happened, because as I read the evidence, there is no allegation that he threatened the police or was abusive to them. The seriousness of the allegation is that here is a third incidence of breach. The third in a year, in effect. He has had a sentence for the first, he has had a suspended sentence for the second and less than two-months after the suspended sentence he is in breach, yet again, in the same way. So there is no reason for not activating the suspended sentence in full. Indeed, it seems to me I am bound to.
9. In addition to the activation of the suspended sentence, I must pass a sentence for this breach. I have considered the Antisocial Behaviour Order Sentencing Guidelines, but it seems to me that in a case like this they are not of great assistance, for the seriousness of the breach is in the repetition of it.
10. The is an argument for saying that the sentence I pass for the breach should be longer than the one Judge Oliver-Jones passed, because of the repetition. But having heard Mr. Fellows I am satisfied that a further three-months is sufficient. There was no threat of violence on this occasion. He told me the circumstances as he puts them forward. Both he and Ms McCormack were very, very drunk; they went back to her flat; an argument ensued and she called the police. He told me that he realises now that he should not go back to that property. I am bound to say that must have been pretty plain from the start, but it is at least welcome to hear him say it in court.
11. Prison, plainly, is not a deterrent, and Mr. Fellows is frank enough to say that. But the court has to mark breaches of injunctions, breaches of its orders, and the only way to do that in this case is to activate the suspended sentence and pass a further sentence of three months in relation to this breach to be served in addition -- in other words, a total of six-months' imprisonment. I deduct from that the time that Mr. Fellows has spent on remand since his arrest. That is nine days, which is the equivalent of eighteen because he will serve half this sentence. So the additional sentence of three months, which is the equivalent of ninety days (slightly more but I round it down to ninety days) is reduced to seventy-two days, and is to be served in addition to the ninety days suspended sentence. So ninety days plus seventy-two days for this breach is a total of 162 days.
12. I have heard what Mr. Fellows says about the fact that he cannot promise that he will not communicate with this lady in the future. If he wishes to vary the terms of the antisocial behaviour order he must make an application to the court to do that and not simply rely upon meeting her and her invitation to the property. I am sure he understands that when he is not in drink. I am sure the drink does play its part in all of this. But I say to him again, if he breaches this order the court has no option but to send him to prison again and again for increasing periods of time. A maximum period for a breach of an order such as this is two-years. That would be for a serious breach, but there comes a time where constant repetition makes any breach serious. The court cannot allow people simply to breach the orders that it has made.
13. So, Mr. Fellows, the least sentence I can pass on you is another three-months and knock off the time you have spent in prison on remand. It is a total of 162 days. You will serve half of that and then you will be released. The antisocial behaviour order continues in the same terms until 23^rd of December 2017, do you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.