Camden News: Judge McCormack | Gospel Oak

Publications by New Journal Enterprises

Home

Archive

Competition

Camden News - by PAUL KEILTHY
Published: 8 May 2008

JUDGE STOPS BID TO EVICT YOUNG KIDS

Older brothers making neighbours’ life hell – claim

A MOTHER and four young children face eviction by the council because four of their brothers are accused of making neighbours’ lives hell.
But the council’s bid to evict the family from their Gospel Oak flat stalled in the courts on Tuesday as a judge refused the Town Hall’s “grotesque” demand for a 10-year-old child to have an injunction imposed against him and criticised the council’s preparation for the case.
Deputy District Judge McCormack told the council’s lawyers at the London Civil Justice Centre in Marylebone: “In the great scheme of things this case may seem of small importance – but to this lady, it is her home, and to the London Borough of Camden, this is a matter of importance. I am not happy about this at all.”
The case centres on the conduct of four brothers in the family – three of whom have anti-social behaviour orders against them. Two are currently in custody.
The council produced evidence of years of poor behaviour, including a statement from Conservative Gospel Oak councillor Keith Sedgwick, whose alleged assault by one of the boys is the subject of a separate criminal case.
Cllr Sedgwick made an emotional appeal for help in the council chamber last month and listed attacks on himself and his house and threats to his family in connection with the issue of anti-social behaviour in the Waxham estate, Mansfield Road.
It is believed that the mothers’ children also include a baby, a three-year-old and a seven-year-old.
But as Judge McCormack adjourned the case until the council could present better paperwork, the Town Hall’s barrister Philip Squire argued that unless the family was moved immediately, witnesses and neighbours would suffer.
He said: “It might well be felt that it is a little harsh for us to try to have her tenancy taken off her – but what else can one do?”
This would include the 10-year-old son of the family, who Mr Squire said should be specifically included in an injunction because he presented a “significant risk of harm”. He added: “As grotesque as it seems, that is the situation we are in. I would never dream of asking for an injunction against a 10-year-old. [But] the 10-year-old does fit within that description.”
The family’s barrister, Joshua Dubin, responded: “The caution with which the court should approach that is manifest. You are excluding small children.”
Judge McCormack refused the injunction, commenting that he had “in mind the sort of repercussions of the Arab-Israeli war, in which one side hits and the other hits back” in fearing that the boys could take revenge.
“If I were to accept that these older youngsters are as bad as they have been portrayed,” Judge McCormack added, “I have also got to accept that even if they’ve been excluded from the area they will go round to where they want and do what they want to who they want.”
The case was adjourned to today (Thursday).

Comment on this article.
(You must supply your full name and email address for your comment to be published)

Name:

Email:

Comment: