Greensquare Accord Ltd v David Carlmain

RECORDER OWEN KC:

1. On Sunday 15 February 2026 the Defendant, Mr Carlmain, was arrested by two police officers at Flat 2, Laurel Court, South Street, WS1 4HD for breach of an injunction order and pursuant to a power of arrest, both dated 22 November 2024.

2. That injunction was made pursuant to section 1 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 . The injunction prohibits the Defendant from entering various properties owned and managed by the Claimant, including Laurel Court, until 4.00pm on 1 July 2026.

3. Following his arrest the Defendant was brought before Recorder Bleasdale KC at this Court on Monday 6 February 2026. At that hearing, it was ordered that the Defendant be remanded in custody until an adjourned hearing of today (20 February 2026), with an application for contempt of court to be filed by the Claimant to by 19 February 2026. That application was filed on Tuesday 17 February 2026. I am told by Counsel for the Claimant that it has been served on the Defendant in prison.

4. I have read to the Defendant his rights today, which he says he understands. Those include the right not to incriminate himself, the right to remain silent, the right to legal representation and to apply for legal aid which may be available without any means test, and his other rights, as summarised on page 3 of the contempt application in form N600, which I read out to him.

5. With appreciation and understanding of his rights, and to his credit, the Defendant admitted to the Court the breach of the injunction and his contempt of court. He was honest with the Court and admitted that he was at the address of Laurel Court on Sunday 15 February 2026.

6. He says in mitigation of his presence there that he did not realise that the injunction carried on to this day. He says he believed that it was in force until May 2025, when, in fact, the order runs to 4.00pm on 1 July 2026. He accepts nevertheless that he was in breach.

7. The Defendant asked the Court to proceed today to sentence him for the breach of the civil injunction and contempt of court, and the Court now does so.

8. The Court considers and applies the guidelines for sentencing as discussed in the case of Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631 .

9. The Court is required to consider in respect of the Defendant’s breach the degree of culpability and the degree of harm.

10. Having regard to the degree of culpability: notwithstanding the Defendant’s explanation today, the Defendant was aware of the order and is responsible for complying with it. Court orders must be complied with. The court must also ensure future compliance with the order. It is a serious matter, and the Court finds that the appropriate culpability in this case is Culpability B, so in the middle of the range.

11. Having regard to the degree of harm: the Court has considered the nature and circumstances of the breach together with the Defendant’s explanation. The Court is satisfied that the category of the harm is at the low end, Category 3. In this case, it was an isolated breach. It was the Defendant’s first breach, and he did not cause harm to others who were at the property.

12. The Court is satisfied in this case, having regard to all the circumstances, that the appropriate categorisation of the breach is Culpability B, Category 3.

13. The starting point for sentence is an adjourned consideration. What that would mean is the Court would adjourn today’s hearing, and reconvene at a later date to see how the Defendant behaves in the meantime and whether he complies with the injunction.

14. The appropriate range of the sentence is an adjourned consideration to one month in prison.

15. The Defendant has already spent six days in custody. If the Defendant had been sentenced, he would serve half his sentence, so that would equate to a sentence of 12 days to date.

16. Nevertheless, the seriousness and authority of court orders cannot be understated. They must be complied with. This Defendant must comply with the injunction order. No sentence other than imprisonment can be justified in this case.

17. The appropriate sentence in this case is one month's imprisonment, less time already spent. Accordingly, there would be a credit for 12 days. In summary, that is 30 days minus 12 days, namely a sentence of 18 days’ imprisonment. That is the shortest sentence that can be passed.

18. Having determined and passed sentence, the Court then considers whether it is appropriate to suspend sentence, or whether the Defendant shall serve an immediate custodial sentence.

19. Given that this is the Defendant’s first breach, the Court is satisfied that it is appropriate to suspend that sentence for a period of six months. The Defendant will leave Court today as free to go, subject to there being any other matters on which he is held by the police.

20. The Defendant’s sentence is 18 days’ imprisonment, suspended for a period of six months. What that means in practice is that the Defendant must ensure that he does not breach the injunction order for the next six months, up to 4.00pm on 20 August 2026. Six months from today, 20 February 2026, takes us to 20 August 2026.

21. There will be an extension of the injunction to that date as well, which is an application made by the Claimant today. Therefore, the injunction order dated 22 November 2024, prohibiting the Defendant from going to this location and the others listed in the order, will be extended from 4.00pm 1 July 2026 to 4.00pm on 20 August 2026.

22. The Defendant is not allowed to go to those locations, and must not go to those locations, at any time up to 4.00pm on 20 August 2026.

23. The Court will type up an order today, and it will be read out to the Defendant in full, and given to the Defendant in hard copy so he can take it away. The Defendant is not allowed to go to those locations at all within that period. He must not do so.

24. If the Defendant is at any of these locations during that period, so at any time until 4.00pm on 20 August 2026, he will be in breach of the injunction. The Defendant will also be liable to be imprisoned because he is serving a suspended sentence for the breach on 15 February 2026.

25. In conclusion: (i) the Defendant is sentenced to 18 days’ imprisonment, suspended for 6 months until 4.00pm on 20 August 2026; (ii) the Defendant must not go to those locations listed in the injunction and the injunction shall be extended until 4.00pm on 20 August 2026. End of Judgment. Transcript of a recording by Acolad UK Ltd 291-299 Borough High Street, London SE1 1JG Tel: 020 7269 0370 [email protected] Acolad UK Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. This transcript has been approved by the judge.