Claim No:  B01BM136
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BIRMINGHAM

The Priory Courts
33 Bull Street
Birmingham B4 6DS

7th April 2016

Before:

HIS HONOUR JUDGE McKENNA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL
Claimant
Local Authority
-v-

MR. KIRT TRAVERS
Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Transcribed from the digital recording by Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd.,
1st Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP
Telephone No: 020 7067 2900.  Fax No: 020 7831 6864

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MISS RICHARDSON of counsel appeared for the Claimant Local Authority
MR. BROWNHILL of counsel appeared for the Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR JUDGE McKENNA: 
1.	This is the hearing of an application by Birmingham City Council to commit Kirt Travers to prison for breach of the terms of what is colloquially referred to as a gang injunction, made against him on 23rd of September 2015, pursuant to sections 34, 35 and 36 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009, as amended. 
2.	The particular provision was an order to the effect that Mr. Travers was not to enter the area coloured in orange on a map annexed to the order, except (a) he may enter the area hatched in black on the map attached, but not associate in that area with more than two people, not including members of his family.
3.	The allegation made against him is that on 18th of February 2016 at 16.35 hours he was identified as being on Crosby Close in Birmingham with more than two persons, not being members of his family, in breach of that provision.
4.	Mr. Travers admits that he was in breach in the way alleged by Birmingham City Council.
5.	This is not the first occasion on which he has breached the terms of the injunction. There are two previous breaches which were the subject of suspended prison sentences of four weeks and two weeks respectively as a result of the order His Honour Judge Rowland made on 24th of November 2015 and relating to two incidents.
6.	There is little guidance in terms of appropriate penalties in these cases. I have been referred by counsel for Mr. Travers to some guidance provided to magistrates in respect of  a different regime.  I am asked and I do take into account the fact that Mr. Travers has admitted the breach, but I also have to take into account that this is the third occasion on which he has breached the terms of the injunction, an injunction the terms of which he was well aware and the continued breaches demonstrate to my mind an unfortunate attitude on the part of Mr. Travers to court orders.  They are there to be obeyed. He can have been in no doubt as a result of the last occasion on which he attended in respect of a breach what the likely sentence would be if there was a repetition. There has been a repetition.  Whilst there was no harassment, (the allegation was merely being in a place where he should not have been with individuals) the fact of the matter is that he knew he should not have been associating with individuals who were not members of his family..  
7.	Nothing less than a custodial sentence, it seems to me, is appropriate, given that this is the third occasion.  Taking into account all the circumstances and the mitigation, such as it is that has been put forward, I sentence Mr. Travers to a term of imprisonment of twenty-eight days of which I expect he will serve fourteen days.  
8.	The suspended sentences in respect of the two previous occasions I do not activate at this time. They remain on the court file in the hope that that will provide some incentive to comply with the terms of the order going forward.  
9.	Mr. Travers should be in no doubt that if he is found to be in breach again he will face a more significant immediate custodial sentence in respect of that breach plus the activating of the currently suspended sentences, so twenty-eight days.
costs
10.	I will make a costs order but it is to be suspended on the usual terms.