PicoBlog

A man who was sentenced to nearly three years’ imprisonment for injuring a judge at Milton Keynes County Court with a series of “relentless” punches to the head has been named as Greg Hazletine.

Earlier coverage of the sentencing hearing this month did not identify the defendant, presumably because Hazletine, 41, had been taking part in family proceedings at the court. But his name appeared in an uncorrected transcript of sentencing remarks published yesterday by the judiciary:

Passing sentence at Southwark Crown Court on 5 June, Mr Justice Goss said that judges in Milton Keynes had been dealing with a dispute between Hazletine and his former partner over his contact with their two children.

On 13 July last year, there was a hearing before Dharmesh Patel, a solicitor sitting as a part-time judge. After Patel’s ruling, Hazletine started shouting and swearing at the recorder. That left him fearful of reprisals.

As a result of Hazletine’s behaviour, the case was taken over by Patrick Perusko, the senior family judge for the area. Judge Perusko decided that future hearings would take place in the building’s most secure courtroom, with a security officer present.

On 29 November, the judge decided to make a non-molestation order banning Hazletine from approaching his children’s school. Perusko left court on two occasions because Hazletine was being abusive and aggressive.

What happened next was summarised by Goss at the sentencing hearing this month. Addressing the defendant, Goss reminded Hazletine what he had done when Perusko stood up up to leave court for the third time:

You picked up a laptop on a desk and a small free-standing electric radiator; then threw the radiator across the courtroom towards the judge’s bench; and jumped on top of the table and vaulted the judicial barrier.

The judge ran out of the door of the court to his chambers and through two doors into hearing room 1 where District Judge Nutley was working. You pursued and caught up with him as he got past District Judge Nutley and pushed him to the corner of the room. He hit his head on the metal base of a coat stand. You pinned him down with your body weight, your hand on top of his chest and throat, and punched him to the head a number of times.

District Judge Nutley described the punching as relentless. You were saying things such as, you only wanted to see your kids to say goodbye and that you were knew that you were going to prison for a long time but you did not care and he deserved it.

District Judge Nutley was telling you to get off Judge Perusko but failed to get you off him. Every blow you delivered to Judge Perusko was with a clenched fist. Your face was bright red. You would occasionally stop punching him to say something abusive or threatening and would then start punching him again.

He began talking to you, saying it would all be okay. Your partner and the security officer had followed and eventually found you. She pleaded with you to stop. You ignored them, telling the judge to promise that he would let you see the children. They tried to pull you off and eventually you let go, enabling the judge to leave the room.

The police were called and you were arrested. When interviewed, you admitted having thrown the radiator, losing your temper with the judge and pursuing him, but said you could not remember what had happened when you caught him.

As a result of the attack on him, Judge Perusko sustained a 2 x 2cm wound to the left side of his head which was closed using staples and glue; two wounds to the top of his head and one to his left cheek; and soft tissue swelling around his head… His vision was blurred. He felt dizzy and his heart rate and blood pressure were elevated…

In his witness statement, made almost two weeks after the attack, he described being in a lot of pain, especially with his back, and struggling to get up on his own…

He feared for his life at the time you attacked him and was concerned about repercussions and being assaulted; and fears for his safety…

Hazletine had three previous convictions for assault. In 2008, he was given six months’ imprisonment for causing grievous bodily harm.

Last November, Hazletine admitted three offences relating to his behaviour at Milton Keynes in July and November last year.

For causing Perusko actual bodily harm by assaulting him, Hazletine received 34 months’ imprisonment.

For using threatening abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards Patel with intent to cause him to believe that immediate unlawful violence would be used against him or to provoke unlawful violence, he was sentenced to two months in prison.

And for criminal damage to the radiator, he was given six weeks to be served concurrently.

The total sentence was three years, of which Hazletine will serve no more than 18 months in custody unless he breaches his licence conditions. A restraining order was also made.

Hazletine, who ran a business of his own, was told by Goss:

You were out of control and have very little insight into your behaviour, the role of the judge and the very frightening ordeal to which you subjected him. He considers you have issues with regulating your emotions and temper and seek to resolve issues by resorting to physical violence, acting impulsively and failing to see the potential harm.

It is clear that you have a close attachment to your children but have no perception on how your behaviour may have contributed to why you have restricted access to them.

Addressing the Commons justice committee in April, the most senior family judge in England and Wales said the incident in Milton Keynes had led to “a deal of apprehension about security” among family judges.

Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the High Court family division, told MPs:

The fact that it happened and the security arrangements were breached to a significant degree has had an impact right across the system — and for civil judges as well. I think that judges think, “well, it could have been me.”

The issue has been taken extremely seriously by the lady chief justice, the senior presiding judge and me; and we are working through what the ramifications will be and what changes need to be made. The differences are quite striking between the security arrangements in a criminal court and those in a family court, where domestic abuse is often an issue and — not frequently, but it is not out of the ordinary — some people become very excited by what is going on and lose control of their behaviour. That could happen in any court.

I think judges would have high in their view of the current state an apprehension about whether we should carry on sitting in the way that we do. So the jury is out, as it were.

McFarlane was asked if there had been an increase in such incidents. He replied:

Over time, if we are measuring it over decades. I do not think that any judges were surprised that something had happened in a court, because, sadly, that is something that does happen. People were surprised by the degree to which this was a known known.

This was an individual who had not behaved safely before and some arrangements had been made, yet it did not protect the judge. Of course, the court staff and the lawyers in the room are vulnerable.

There was not another party in the room on this occasion: but if there was they would be vulnerable. It is something that is rightly being taken really seriously.

A week earlier, it was announced that judges sitting at the central family court would resume wearing robes for a three-month trial period. “This follows concern about incidents of violent and threatening behaviour experienced by judges and court users,” the courts service said.

As McFarlane explained, at that particular court in High Holborn there was

a high level of confiscation of knives at the door — not because people are trying deliberately to bring in knives, but because in the population at any one time people have knives with them.

The judges felt that they wanted to do something to see if it would change the perception of those attending court — as to the seriousness of the court process and the anonymity of the judges’ role — by bringing back robes.

More generally, McFarlane thought the family justice system was now “convalescing” after a period of intensive care.

ncG1vNJzZmiqn6%2Byr67Eq55nq6WXwLWtwqRlnKedZL1wvNGiqqimXZu8s3nArKqarZyptq%2BzjKOsnZ%2BV