Dartford Borough Council v Coates

In committal proceedings for breach of an injunction, the applicant must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the breach was deliberate. The relevant question is whether compliance with the injunction was possible, not whether the defendant had accommodation matching a preferred lifestyle or culture. A claim that there is nowhere else to go is not an automatic defence. The court must consider Convention rights and all relevant personal circumstances when imposing a custodial sanction, but a judge need not recite every factor if the judgment shows that they were considered. An appellate court should assess the judgment as a whole, including the reasons for refusing an adjournment and the basis of the sentence.

Dartford Borough Council obtained an injunction prohibiting residential occupation of land at The Stables, Station Road, Sutton at Hone. After Mrs Coates bought the land and moved there with her children, including a severely disabled child, she remained in occupation despite being made aware of the injunction and being added as a party.

The Canterbury County Court found a deliberate breach and imposed a 28-day custodial sentence suspended to allow compliance. Mrs Coates appealed, challenging the standard of proof, the treatment of her accommodation, Romany gypsy lifestyle and Convention rights, alleged judicial prejudice, and the proportionality of the sentence. The central issue was whether the county court judge had erred in finding a wilful breach and imposing the suspended sentence.

1. Appeal dismissed. In committal proceedings for contempt, the council bore the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that Mrs Coates was in deliberate breach of the injunction. The county court judge applied that standard.
2. A claim that there is nowhere else to go is not an automatic defence. The relevant issue was whether it was possible for the defendant to comply with the injunction. The judge was not required to determine whether alternative accommodation matched the defendant’s Romany gypsy lifestyle.
3. The court had to consider relevant personal circumstances and applicable Convention rights. The judge was not required to repeat every consideration as a mantra if the judgment, read as a whole, showed that the matters had been taken into account.
4. The county court judge’s references to the number of human-rights cases, possible filibustering, and the defendant’s familiarity with proceedings did not establish prejudice or a closed mind. The comments were directed to managing the hearing and focusing submissions.
5. The suspended sentence and compliance period were not irrational. The judge had considered Mrs Coates’s circumstances and those of her children, including the disabled child, and had exercised his discretion. The fact that the period resembled that used in another case did not show blind adherence or irrationality.
6. The suspension was extended for 28 days, to 7 December 2012, with liberty to apply to the County Court for variation on good grounds. The council was awarded its costs, not to be enforced without leave, with detailed assessment of legal-aid costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal from the Canterbury County Court was dismissed. The suspension of the 28-day sentence was extended to 7 December 2012, with liberty to apply to the County Court for variation on good grounds. Costs were awarded to the council, subject to the stated qualification.
• Canterbury County Court: HHJ Simpkiss found Mrs Coates in contempt for deliberate breach of the injunction and imposed a 28-day custodial sentence suspended until 12 October 2012.