Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v Green & Anor

Sentencing for breach of an injunction must address three objectives: securing future compliance, protecting the public, and punishing the contemnor so that the seriousness of disobedience is understood. Deliberate participation in organised group misconduct is assessed by reference to the overall activity as well as the individual acts. Factors relevant to suspension include remorse, previous good character and an early admission, but suspension remains exceptional where the breach is serious. Aggravating features include publicity intended to encourage further participation and conduct carried out knowingly in defiance of the order.

An injunction made under section 22 of the Local Government Act 1972 prohibited car cruising in the Black Country area. The respondents admitted participating in a car cruise near Flood Street car park, driving in convoy at speed and causing excessive noise. The conduct caused, or was capable of causing, significant public nuisance and annoyance.

The court determined the appropriate custodial sentences and whether they should be suspended. Mr Green had also filmed and transmitted the activity on social media. The central issues were the seriousness of the breaches, the effect of group participation, and the mitigating factors relied upon by each respondent.

1. Objectives of sanction. The court stated that sanctions for an admitted breach of an injunction pursue three objectives: securing future compliance with the order, protecting the public affected by past or future breaches, and punishing the contemnor so as to bring home the seriousness of disobedience.
2. Assessment of group misconduct. In assessing breach of an order directed at collective antisocial activity, the court must consider both the individual acts of the respondent and the group activity to which the respondent contributed. Larger numbers may increase noise, nuisance, disruption and the intimidating effect on members of the public.
3. Seriousness and aggravation. The respondents knew of the injunction because it had been widely publicised and signs were displayed near the scene. Their conduct was deliberate, coordinated and carried out in ostentatious defiance of the order. Mr Green’s filming and live transmission on social media was an additional aggravating feature because it could encourage others to attend.
4. Suspension. Immediate custody was necessary because of the seriousness of the breaches. By a narrow margin, suspension was justified by genuine remorse, previous good character and the respondents’ early admissions. The sentences were therefore suspended on condition of compliance with the injunction for the remainder of its duration.
5. Mr Green received concurrent terms of four months’ imprisonment, correctly treated as detention in a young offender institution if activated. Mr Charlesworth received concurrent terms of three months’ detention. Each respondent was also ordered to pay £80 towards the application fee.