Sheffield City Council v Brooke

Defence of another may, in principle, justify an act which would otherwise breach an undertaking or injunction and defeat a committal application. The defendant must honestly believe that intervention is necessary, and the act must be objectively reasonable by reference to the circumstances as honestly believed. In an emergency, the availability of police assistance is an important factor, but it is not an absolute legal requirement to seek police intervention first. The criminal test applies to the defendant’s belief because contempt proceedings serve an essentially public and punitive purpose, despite their civil classification.

Sheffield City Council applied to commit Paul Brooke for contempt after he entered a safety zone established during the Council’s tree-felling programme. Mr Brooke had previously undertaken not to enter such zones. He admitted intentionally entering the zone, but contended that he had done so to protect a female protester whom he honestly believed was being assaulted and was about to be assaulted again by security staff.

The central issues were whether defence of another could answer a committal application, who bore the burden of proof, whether the criminal or civil test applied, and whether Mr Brooke honestly believed intervention was necessary and acted reasonably.

1. Applicable principles. The Council bore the burden of proving intentional breach to the criminal standard. The prohibited conduct had to be clearly stated, and any reasonable ambiguity in the undertaking had to be resolved in Mr Brooke’s favour.
2. Defence of another. Defence of another is capable in principle of providing a defence to contempt. The same approach applies where the defendant’s intervention involves something less than force, provided there is a clear nexus between the conduct and the crime or harm sought to be prevented. The court must scrutinise such claims carefully because spurious allegations may encourage intervention and undermine compliance with orders.
3. Applicable mental test. Although contempt proceedings are civil proceedings procedurally, their purpose is to enforce court orders, punish breaches and deter future disobedience. They therefore serve an essentially public purpose and have more in common with criminal proceedings for this issue. The defendant need only have an honest belief that intervention was necessary; the belief need not be reasonable. The intervention itself must nevertheless be objectively reasonable by reference to the circumstances as honestly believed.
4. Police assistance. In political protest cases involving no imminent crime, self-help will generally be unreasonable where recourse to the police or courts is available. The position differs where an immediate assault is reasonably perceived and there may be no time to obtain assistance. Whether intervention was reasonable is ordinarily a question of fact, including the imminence of the threat, the availability of police intervention and the vulnerability of the person at risk.
5. Mr Brooke honestly, though mistakenly, believed that the protester had been assaulted and was about to suffer further harm. He acted instinctively and had only moments to intervene. Although involving the police would have been preferable, entry into the safety zone was reasonable on the facts. The application to commit was dismissed. The decision did not authorise future breaches, particularly where police officers were closely supervising removals.

The judgment records that the tree-felling dispute had previously led to an unsuccessful judicial review and to an injunction in related proceedings. This was a first-instance committal decision.