In a recent without notice application made in the county court at Peterborough, Dr. Graydon secured an interim injunction with a police power of arrest attached against a tenant of a social housing provider.

The application was made under section 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014) (“Act”). The housing provider relied on different types of evidence to demonstrate the tenant’s conduct toward the housing provider’s staff over 8 months constituted antisocial behaviour. This evidence not only included text messages and emails from the tenant to different staff, but also multiple audio recordings of the tenants’ telephone calls to different staff. During the hearing, some of the audio recordings were played to the judge in court. This digital evidence was especially important because the judge was able to hear the tenant’s voice. This left the court in no doubt about the nature of this part of the offending conduct.

In determining the application and all the other evidence, the judge highlighted that the granting of a without notice application such that was before the court was “exceptional.” However, the judge concluded that both conditions under section 1(2) and 1(3) of the Act were satisfied such as to allow the court to grant the application. The first condition in the Act is that that the “Respondent has engaged or threatens to engage in anti-social behaviour.” The second condition is that it is “just and convenient to grant the injunction for the purpose of preventing the respondent from engaging in anti-social behaviour.” The judge also went on to conclude that based on the evidence before the court, there was a risk of harm both to neighbouring residents as well as to the Applicant’s staff. Significantly, the judge also concluded that the power of arrest sought by the housing provider should be attached to the injunction.

Comment

The case is noteworthy for at least three different reasons. Firstly, the application was made without notice to the tenant. This denied the individual concerned the opportunity to attend the hearing. This was a feature of the application that the judge drew specific attention to.

It is important to note that under section 6 of the Act, an injunction application to address anti-social behaviour may be made without notice being given. In this case, the judge considered and determined the application on this without notice basis. This was justified in the circumstances of the case. The tenant would have an opportunity to attend the return hearing when it was listed and would be served with the digital evidence.

The second reason centres on the types of evidence relied upon by the Applicant. The housing provider relied on multiple audio recordings of the tenant’s phone calls to the housing providers staff. This was not the only evidence. However, the audio evidence was powerful and compelling evidence of the actual words including how they were (i) spoken (ii) used and (iii) directed at multiple staff members over a prolonged period. This feature highlights the importance of all housing providers including local authorities having (i) the capability to capture and store digital communications including audio (voice) recordings, and (ii) the ability to locate, extract, and produce them as evidence in injunction applications.

A third feature of the case is the option for the application to be determined by way of a CVP hearing. One of the issues that immediately arises with this option (whether requested or offered by the court) is a careful consideration of the practicalities of presenting digital evidence to the court at the hearing. This may arise when there has been insufficient time to file the digital evidence ahead of the hearing and consideration also has to be given to requesting a “remote” versus an “in person” hearing. Concerns about the remote option may be overcome by knowing in advance how to present digital evidence (audio or visual) through the platform and being thoroughly familiar with the technical capabilities of the system. Clearly a significant advantage of the CVP option is that the matter can be determined promptly and efficiently by the court with the elimination of travel and waiting time for the applicant, witnesses, and the advocate.

Dr. Graydon was instructed by Devonshires Solicitor.