Wolverhampton City Council v Tayor & Ors

Breaches of a High Court injunction restraining car cruising may justify an immediate custodial sentence where the conduct creates serious risks of public nuisance, obstruction, annoyance or injury. Full admissions, absence of previous convictions or antisocial behaviour, limited personal involvement, cooperation and other mitigation may justify suspending the sentence. The suspension may be conditional on future compliance with the injunction, and a further proved breach may activate the suspended term as well as attract a sentence for the new breach.

Wolverhampton City Council applied to commit seven respondents for breaches of an injunction granted on 1 December 2014. The injunction restrained car-cruising activity in Dudley, Walsall and Wolverhampton. The alleged conduct included travelling in convoys, speeding, causing obstruction, excessive noise, public nuisance and significant annoyance.

Each respondent admitted the relevant breaches. The court therefore determined sentence only. The central issues were the seriousness of the admitted conduct, whether custody was warranted, and the effect of the respondents’ mitigation, including their early admissions, personal circumstances, lack of relevant history and assurances of future compliance.

1. Committal and sentence. The application succeeded. The admitted breaches were sufficiently serious that a custodial sentence was required to reflect the mischief addressed by the injunction.
2. Seriousness of the conduct. Car cruising involving moving convoys, speed, excessive noise and obstruction could cause significant public nuisance and annoyance, and could create danger or a risk of injury to road users and pedestrians. The absence of actual injury did not materially reduce the potential seriousness of the conduct.
3. Mitigation. The court accepted the respondents’ early and full admissions, lack of previous convictions or antisocial-behaviour history, cooperation, employment and other personal circumstances. The individual involvement of some respondents was at the lower end of the scale, particularly where they were passengers or were involved only in the obstruction-related conduct.
4. Suspension. In the circumstances, immediate custody was unnecessary. Louis Taylor, Ben Taylor and James Burke received concurrent terms of 28 days’ imprisonment, suspended until 1 February 2018. Lee Robinson, Mr Evans, Mr Gowran and Jodie Price received concurrent terms of 14 days’ imprisonment, suspended until the same date.
5. Suspension was conditional on continued compliance with the injunction. The court warned that a further proved breach could result both in a sentence for the new breach and activation of the suspended sentence. Costs orders were made against the respondents.

Not an appeal. No prior appellate history is stated in the judgment.