Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council v Sheeran

1. This matter is listed this morning for the hearing of a committal application brought by Sandwell. It relates to the breach of a, so-called, car cruising injunction granted by His Honour Judge Robert Owen, Q.C. (sitting as a judge of the High Court) on 1 st of December 2014.

2. The Defendant on this occasion is Mr. Reece Anthony Sheeran who appears unrepresented. Mr. Sheeran admits that he has breached this injunction in the following circumstances. The Claimant's witness evidence is that on Sunday 3 rd of May last year there were two cars racing at speed on the A41, part of the Black Country route, which is the subject of this injunction. One of those cars (a VW Bora), which had been modified, was driven by Mr. Sheeran and the other (a Skoda) by a Mr. Cooper-Edwards.

3. The police saw these vehicles and one police officer drove after them. That officer says this in his witness statement: "I turned after these vehicles, activating my emergency equipment due to the speed we were travelling. I was travelling at approximately eighty-miles-an-hour and was not gaining on these vehicles as I saw them reach the next island in the distance. The speed limit on these roads is forty-miles-an-hour."

4. It is plain that this was an activity being undertaken by Mr. Sheeran and by Mr. Cooper-Edwards for their own enjoyment and excitement. Mr. Sheeran accepts that he knew that there was an injunction prohibiting that sort of conduct. This sort of driving presents not only a nuisance to those who live in the area, but is a plain and obvious danger to those who use the public highway.

5. This injunction, and others like it, are granted to ensure that the roads are as safe as they may be. People who choose to use the roads for racing should know that the court takes a serious view when its orders are broken. The only appropriate sentence for its breach is a custodial one.

6. The issue in this case whether that sentence should be suspended or not. I am going to suspend the sentence. This is Mr. Sheeran's first breach of this injunction and he says to me - and I accept - that he has not done it before, he has not done it since and he will not be doing it again. He should understand that if he does do it again that would place him in breach of the sentence I am passing today, and that he would have to serve any sentence for a subsequent breach in addition to the one that I am going to pass upon him today. It is a serious matter, as I know he understands.

7. Moreover, he is a man of twenty-four with a full licence, with dependents, and with a job. It seems to me it is unnecessary to require him to serve the sentence at this stage, given his general attitude towards this matter and the contributions he makes to others.

8. The other reason for suspending the sentence in his case is that Mr. Cooper-Edwards was dealt with by means of a three-month sentence suspended. It seems to me that their culpability is the same they should be dealt with, if at all possible, in the same way.

9. In those circumstances the order I make in respect of this breach will be a sentence of three-months' imprisonment, suspended for a period of twelve-months on terms that Mr. Sheeran complies with the terms of the injunction made on 1 st of December 2014.

10. I am going to direct that a copy of that injunction is attached to the committal order that I make today, so that Mr. Sheeran is in no doubt as to the terms of the suspension and the requirements that he must keep to over the next twelve-months. Of course he must keep to those requirements for the life of the injunction, but the suspended sentence is for a period of twelve months. (The parties addressed the court on the making of a costs order.)

11. Very well, I will order that Mr. Sheeran pay Sandwell Borough Council's costs in the sum of £500 at the rate of £50 per week, the first payment 4 th of March 2016, so that will take you ten weeks to pay it off. If you want to pay it off quicker, then you can, but you must pay those instalments.