The Manifesto Club has previously published reports by academics at the University of York and Coventry, which found that people are being imprisoned for anodyne actions such as feeding the birds or asking for 50p.
These imprisonments were for breach of a Civil Injunction, a power contained in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act. The Civil Injunction will soon be replaced by Respect Orders, currently passing through parliament; it is our view that Respect Orders will make such unjust imprisonments even more likely.
One of the most striking cases in these previous reports was that of Ms Reilly, a homeless woman imprisoned on 18 December 2024 for 18 months, for entering and attempting to sleep in Peterborough YMCA. She had repeatedly breached an injunction banning her from staying overnight in Peterborough YMCA.
Dr Rona Epstein, an academic from Coventry University, sought to obtain the court judgement, in order to get the full facts of the decision to imprison Ms Reilly. Although judgements are supposed to be ‘published in timely fashion’, this was not publicly available until 15 July.
Here is a briefing containing Dr Epstein’s analysis of the judgement and the context surrounding it. The briefing finds that:
- Ms Reilly was not present at the hearing, nor was she represented;
- The judgement states that Ms Reilly believed she had a right to enter and sleep in the YMCA, but did not consider the reasons for this belief;
- The judgement did not consider the Ms Reilly’s state of mental health, or her homeless situation;
- In total, over the past 9 years, Ms Reilly has been committed to prison on seven occasions for this breach;
- Aside from these breaches Ms Reilly was found to be of ‘past good character’.
The briefing notes that Ms Reilly was given a similar sentence to recent criminal court convictions including: a man who caused death by dangerous driving; a man who caused grievous bodily harm and significant brain injuries; and a man who carried out two sexual offences on women. This is clearly disproportionate, since Ms Reilly’s action did not injure or hurt anyone.
Injunction breach is tried as ‘contempt of court’, in the civil courts, lacking the ordinary protections of the criminal courts (such as a right to legal aid, a requirement that defendants must be offered representation if they risk a prison sentence, and protections for vulnerable defendants).
Ms Reilly was convicted of breaching a court order, and not of committing any crime.
Dr Epstein concludes:
We must 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.
There must be a system guaranteed to ensure 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.