The Council of the City Of Newcastle Upon Tyne v Peter Hellens [2026] EWCC 47
District Judge Dodsworth:
[1]This matter comes before me today to deal with a number of breaches of an injunction which was made on 1 May 2026. The material term of the injunction was that the Defendant, Mr Peter Hellens, must not enter the area outlined in red on the map attached to the order being the block of flats known as numbers 9-19 Pooley Road, Slatyford, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.[2]I am satisfied that that order was personally served upon the Defendant on 8 May 2026 by process servers acting on behalf of the Claimant, Newcastle City Council.[3]It falls for me to decide the appropriate penalty to be imposed following nine separate breaches of that term of the injunction. Six of those were set out in a form N600. There were two breaches on 8 May 2026 when Mr Hellens refused to leave the block of flats when he was served with the injunction. He later re-entered the block of flats on the evening of 8 May 2026.[4]There were then breaches by which he re-entered the block of flats on 9 May 2026, 10 May 2026, and on four occasions on 11 May 2026 and 12 May 2026. Through his legal representative Miss Stephenson, Mr Hellens has accepted all of those breaches. There was then a breach on 19 June 2026 which is now accepted by the Defendant and on 1 July 2026 which was accepted before District Judge Brien on 2 July 2026 when District Judge Brien adjourned sentencing so that the matter could be considered with the other breaches. There was then a further breach on 4 July 2026 which is also accepted. So there are nine breaches all of which have been accepted.[5]I also note there was a previous breach which was dealt with by District Judge Malik on 14 May 2026 where the breach was accepted and no further penalty was imposed on that occasion.[6]When sentencing I have had regard to the well known case of Lovett v Wigan Borough Council. I remind myself that the objectives in sentencing for a breach of an anti-social behaviour injunction are firstly to ensure future compliance with the order, secondly punishment and thirdly rehabilitation.[7]The options available to me are an immediate order for committal to prison, a suspended order for committal to prison with conditions, adjourning the consideration of the penalty, a fine or no order.[8]The maximum term that can be imposed is 2 years’ imprisonment, see section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. One half of any custodial term will be served in prison before automatic release, see section 258 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Time spent on remand is not automatically deducted so if credit is given for that consideration should also be given to doubling the period deducted to take account of section 258.[9]If I am going to impose a sentence of imprisonment I need to be satisfied that the custody threshold has been crossed. I then decide any term of imprisonment and then make sure that that is the shortest period that deals justly with the case and consider whether that should be suspended.[10]When approaching the matter I have regard to the grid which was put forward by the Civil Justice Council and which was explicitly approved in the Wigan case. I have to determine what level of culpability applies to the breaches and what level of harm was caused. Here it seems to me that the culpability is either at the top end of culpability level (b), a deliberate breach falling between levels (a) and (c), or at the low end of (a), high culpability, very serious breach or persistent serious breaches. Here there has been persistent breaching of the order although most of the breaches took place over a relatively short period in May. But there have been further breaches more recently.[11]The level of harm is in my judgment at the high end of category 3 which is where the breach causes little or no harm or distress. Here I bear in mind that essentially the breach is being in the wrong place: he is in a place that he is forbidden to be in, but there is no evidence that anything he did on those occasions caused particular harm to any other individual.[12]Accordingly I would assess this case as falling at the high end of (b)3 which would give a starting point of adjourned consideration and a category range of adjourned consideration to 1 month. Here I think because it is at the high end that I would say the category range I have in my mind is adjourned consideration to 6 weeks’ imprisonment.[13]I bear in mind that Mr Hellens has already spent some time in custody in relation to these breaches. He spent 2 days in custody on 19 and 20 June 2026 before being released on bail by District Judge Hambler, a further 2 days on 1 and 2 July before being released on bail by District Judge Brien and he has spent 14 days in custody since 4 July 2026 when he was arrested and then remanded in custody from 6 July 2026 pursuant to orders of District Judge Sendall. Accordingly that is 18 days in total which one doubles up to 36 days bearing in mind section 258 of the Criminal Justice Act 2023.[14]Given that the Defendant Mr Hellens has already served the equivalent of a 36 day sentence for these breaches and bearing in mind the range that I indicated, I do not propose that any further penalty be imposed by me. I will therefore order that he be released with effect from today and that is the punishment for these breaches.[15]I make clear that if Mr Hellens was to find himself arrested and brought before the Court for further breaches it will be a different kettle of fish. If he comes back in front of a judge again, it is likely that he is going to be serving a significant period of time. It is his choice. The relationship with the woman who lives in the relevant block of flats is said to be over, so he has got no reason to be there: he must keep away. It is a dead straightforward injunction, do not go to that block of flats. This Transcript has been approved by the Judge. The Transcription Agency hereby certifies that the above is an accurate and complete recording of the proceedings or part thereof. The Transcription Agency, 24-28 High Street, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5AT Tel: 01303 230038 Email: court@thetranscriptionagency.com