St Edmundsbury Borough Council v Oakley (aka Gaskin)

Persistent breaches of a planning injunction constitute serious contempt because court orders must be respected and the authority of the court preserved. A committal sentence may properly contain both punitive and coercive elements. Imprisonment may be suspended where the contemnor admits the breaches, apologises, and gives undertakings supported by clear compliance deadlines. Suspension must remain conditional on prompt compliance. The court should not permit ongoing breach to confer a benefit or suggest that contempt is tolerated.

The claimant applied to commit the defendant for contempt of court arising from breaches of an injunction made under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The injunction concerned unauthorised residential use and development at land known as The Birches.

The defendant admitted every alleged breach, apologised, and offered undertakings. The central issue was the appropriate sanction, including whether imprisonment should be immediate or suspended.

1. The application for committal was established. The defendant admitted all seven allegations, including the stationing and residential use of a touring caravan in an unauthorised location, residential use of the stable block, and unauthorised storage and development.
2. The persistent failure to comply with the injunction aggravated the contempt. There had been no prompt and full compliance, and the court had to protect respect for its orders and its authority.
3. Committal sentences have both punitive and coercive elements. In the circumstances, imprisonment was inevitable, but the appropriate sentence was four months’ imprisonment suspended on the defendant’s compliance with the undertakings and order.
4. The suspension was conditional and did not condone the breaches. The court relied on the public interest in preventing contempt from diminishing respect for court orders, undermining judicial authority, or subverting the rule of law, as explained in Mid Bedfordshire District Council v Brown [2004] EWCA Civ 1709.
5. The defendant was warned that a future failure to comply could result in a less sympathetic approach. Continuing breaches identified after the hearing were required to be remedied in accordance with the order.