Committal for Contempt of Court in Open Court at Coventry: Stables
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | F00CV515 |
| Court | County Court |
| Subject Matter | Committal for Contempt |
Case No: F00CV515
IN THE COVENTRY COUNTY COURT
Coventry Magistrates’ Court
140 Much Park Street
Coventry
CV1 2SN
Date: 26/06/2020
Before:
DISTRICT JUDGE MURCH
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
Claimant
- and -
MR. RYAN STABLES
Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr. Lawal for the Claimant
Mr. Ricketts for the Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
If this Transcript is to be reported or published, there is a requirement to ensure that no reporting
restriction will be breached. This is particularly important in relation to any case in volving a
sexual offence, where the victim is guaranteed lifetime anonymity (Sexual Offences (Amendment)
Act 1992), or where an order has been made in relation to a young person.
This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance
with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights a re reserved.
Digital Transcription by Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP.
Telephone No: 020 7067 2900. DX 410 LDE
Email: info@martenwalshcherer.com
Web: www.martenwalshcherer.com
Page Count:
34
Word Count:
10053
Number of Folios:
140
County Court Unapproved Judgment:
No permission is granted to copy or use in court
Warwickshire C.C. v. Stables
Draft Page 2
DISTRICT JUDGE MURCH :
1. This is an application brought by Warwickshire County Council for the
committal of the Defendant, Mr. Ryan Stables, in respect of an injunction
which was made by the Coventry Youth Court in 2019 and which has been
extended until September of this year. For context, I read out the terms of the
injunction at the outset:
“It is ordered that R yan Stables be forbidden from, whether by
himself or by instructing or encouraging any other person,
(1) Contacting or approaching the following individuals:
a) Miss Y;
b) Miss X.
(2) Entering Miss Y’s or Miss X’s residential address for the time
being or any part of the building or grounds where they reside.
(3) Interfering with or controlling Miss Y’s finances including
interfering, accessing or attempting to access or control her personal
bank account.
(4) Interfering with or preventing attendance at Miss Y’s or Miss X’s
appointments with Health Services, Social Services or any like agency.
(5) Having in his possession Miss Y’s identity documents.
(6) Publishing, disclosing or sharing with a third person private sexual
materials of any person.
County Court Unapproved Judgment:
No permission is granted to copy or use in court
Warwickshire C.C. v. Stables
Draft Page 3
(7) Acting in such a manner as to cause or likely to cause harassment,
alarm or distress to any person, and there be a power of arrest in
accordance with section 4 of the Anti-social Behaviour and Crime and
Policing Act 2014 attached at paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order”.
That order originally remained in force until 15th May 2020 but it is common
ground that it is now extended until September of this year.
2. It is a comprehensive injunction. It makes clear a number of specific things
that Mr. Stables is not to do ending with a quite general bar on causing
harassment, alarm or distress to any person. The Claimant brings its
application under the more specific restrictions particularly as th ey relate to
Miss X to whom I shall refer in the course of this Judgment.
3. I think it is necessary to set out the procedural background whereby the
proceedings unfolded before me over the last four days of this case. The
matter was listed for a three day hearing. We are presently still operating
under the Covid-19 restrictions and they have some relevance to the way
matters unfolded.
4. On Tuesday the matter was due to start. There was some confusion as to
whether Mr. Stables’ non-attendance at court was due to the security team not
bringing him or whether he declined to get in the security vehicle. I heard no
direct evidence on the point and, therefore, I have to assume in Mr. Stables’
favour that there was difficulty with transport in getting him here on the
Tuesday morning. I make that clear at the outset.
To continue reading
Request your trial