Many have welcomed the Government’s announcement that it will decriminalise rough sleeping. This is a long overdue and very welcome reform.
However, punishment for being homeless, using Anti-Social Behaviour Injunctions (ASBI) is set to continue and to be widened with new Respect Orders introduced in the Crime and Policing Bill.
The purpose of this article is to raise awareness of the severity of the county courts when imposing sanctions on homeless people who have breached an ASBI by sleeping in a proscribed place.
In particular I call for an enquiry into the decision on 18 December 2024 to commit a homeless woman to prison for 18 months for entering a YMCA building where she could shelter for the night .
For some time I have been doing research on ASBIs and the sanctions ordered by the County Courts, under civil law, when these injunctions are breached.
The punishments for those found sleeping rough have been severe: terms of imprisonment of 12 weeks,(Lanka) 18 weeks (Martin Gegeris). Most recently, on 18 December 2024 Jacqueline Reilly was sent to prison for 18 months for entering Peterborough YMCA to sleep there.
These severe punishment are very concerning.
Grounds for concern:
- In a Court of Appeal decision on contempt the Court stated that ‘[a]ny sentence must be just and proportionate (Lovett v Wigan BC and Others [2022] EWCA Civ 1631).
Can 18 months immediate imprisonment be a just and proportionate punishment for entering a building and sleeping there? - Peterborough County Court has not published its judgment in the case of Jacqueline Reilly on the publicly available site.
The Court must publish its judgment giving the reasons for imposing a term of imprisonment. The (Rules of Procedure CPR 81 (8) state:‘Following a committal the Court shall be responsible for ensuring that where a sentence of imprisonment (immediate or suspended) is passed in contempt proceedings under this Part, that judgment is transcribed and published on the website of the judiciary of England and Wales.’
No oversight of the decisions of the county court
In the Court of Appeal (Devon County Council v Kirk [2016] EWCA Civ 1221), Sir James Munby related the history of imprisonment of those found to be in contempt of court. From 1963, the matter of such committals was regulated by the Direction to the Official Solicitor issued in May 1963, requiring the Official Solicitor to: ‘Review all cases of persons committed to prison for contempt of court … take such action as he may see necessary thereon and … report thereon quarterly … in every year.’
This direction remained in force until revoked by Chris Grayling, as Lord Chancellor, on 1 November 2012. The modern practice was that prison governors notified the Official Solicitor of the reception of every person jailed for contempt of court very shortly after the prisoner’s arrival, which meant that the Official Solicitor could intervene, where appropriate, very quickly. The process of quarterly review by an officer of the court, instituted in 1830, continued until 2012. It served well those found to be in contempt of court, and more generally, the justice system. Those inappropriately imprisoned could be freed at the earliest proper time. Following Mr Grayling’s decision in 2012, the protection provided by the review procedure ceased to exist.
Earlier this year I partnered with the Manifesto Club and academics including Professor Caroline Hunter at the University of York, to raise the alarm about the numbers of people imprisoned for minor or anodyne actions such as feeding the birds or asking for 50p. These Manifesto Club reports called for action to stop unnecessary, unjust and damaging imprisonments imposed, at huge public cost, on the most vulnerable in our society.
Urgent action is required to:
- Ensure that the judgment in the case of Jacqueline Reilly is published so that it is publicly available for scrutiny of the reasons to impose 18 months immediate imprisonment.
- Consider and report on whether this can be regarded as ‘just and proportionate’.
- Ensure that our legislators reform the law of contempt so that county courts would no longer have the power to impose imprisonment on homeless people who have not committed any crime.
- Set up a system for effective oversight of the decisions to commit to prison made in the County Courts under civil law, where the long established protections for defendants under criminal law do not apply.
Many have welcomed the Government’s announcement that it will decriminalise rough sleeping. This is a long overdue and very welcome reform.
However, punishment for being homeless, using Anti-Social Behaviour Injunctions (ASBI) is set to continue and to be widened with new Respect Orders introduced in the Crime and Policing Bill.
The purpose of this article is to raise awareness of the severity of the county courts when imposing sanctions on homeless people who have breached an ASBI by sleeping in a proscribed place.
In particular I call for an enquiry into the decision on 18 December 2024 to commit a homeless woman to prison for 18 months for entering a YMCA building where she could shelter for the night .
For some time I have been doing research on Anti-Social Behaviour Injunctions (ASBIs) and the sanctions ordered by the County Courts, under civil law, when these injunctions are breached.
The punishments for those found sleeping rough have been severe: terms of imprisonment of 12 weeks,(Lanka) 18 weeks (Martin Gegeris).
Most recently, on 18 December 2024 Jacqueline Reilly was sent to prison for 18 months for entering Peterborough YMCA to sleep there.
These severe punishment are very concerning.
Grounds for concern:
- In a Court of Appeal decision on contempt the Court stated that ‘[a]ny sentence must be just and proportionate’ (Lovett v Wigan BC and Others [2022] EWCA Civ 1631).
Can 18 months immediate imprisonment be a just and proportionate punishment for entering a building and sleeping there? - Peterborough County Court has not published its judgment in the case of Jacqueline Reilly on the publicly available site.
The Court must publish its judgment giving the reasons for imposing a term of imprisonment. The (Rules of Procedure CPR 81 (8) state: ‘Following a committal the Court shall be responsible for ensuring that where a sentence of imprisonment (immediate or suspended) is passed in contempt proceedings under this Part, that judgment is transcribed and published on the website of the judiciary of England and Wales.’
No oversight of the decisions of the county court
In the Court of Appeal (Devon County Council v Kirk [2016] EWCA Civ 1221), Sir James Munby related the history of imprisonment of those found to be in contempt of court. From 1963, the matter of such committals was regulated by the Direction to the Official Solicitor issued in May 1963, requiring the Official Solicitor to: ‘Review all cases of persons committed to prison for contempt of court … take such action as he may see necessary thereon and … report thereon quarterly … in every year’.
This direction remained in force until revoked by Chris Grayling, as Lord Chancellor, on 1 November 2012. The modern practice was that prison governors notified the Official Solicitor of the reception of every person jailed for contempt of court very shortly after the prisoner’s arrival, which meant that the Official Solicitor could intervene, where appropriate, very quickly. The process of quarterly review by an officer of the court, instituted in 1830, continued until 2012. It served well those found to be in contempt of court, and more generally, the justice system. Those inappropriately imprisoned could be freed at the earliest proper time. Following Mr Grayling’s decision in 2012, the protection provided by the review procedure ceased to exist.
Earlier this year I partnered with the Manifesto Club and academics including Professor Caroline Hunter at the University of York, to raise the alarm about the numbers of people imprisoned for minor or anodyne actions such as feeding the birds or asking for 50p. These Manifesto Club reports called for action to stop unnecessary, unjust and damaging imprisonments imposed, at huge public cost, on the most vulnerable in our society.
Urgent action is required to:
- Ensure that the judgment in the case of Jacqueline Reilly is published so that it is publicly available for scrutiny of the reasons to impose 18 months immediate imprisonment.
- Consider and report on whether this can be regarded as ‘just and proportionate’.
- Ensure that our legislators reform the law of contempt so that county courts would no longer have the power to impose imprisonment on homeless people who have not committed any crime.
- Set up a system for effective oversight of the decisions to commit to prison made in the County Courts under civil law, where the long established protections for defendants under criminal law do not apply.
I acknowledge with gratitude research funding by the Oakdale Trust
Rona Epstein is honorary research fellow at Coventry Law School, Coventry University (R.Epstein@coventry.ac.uk) and honorary visiting research fellow at University of York’s law school (Rona.epstein@york.ac.uk)
