North Warwickshire Borough Council v Persons Unknown

A local authority may obtain a High Court injunction against persons unknown to restrain street cruising where its statutory powers and the evidence establish a sufficiently serious public nuisance and risk to highway users and residents. The defendant class must be defined with sufficient certainty. The order must be no wider than necessary and proportionate, including in its geographical scope and definition of the prohibited conduct. Alternative service may be used, but a person cannot be committed for contempt unless the claimant proves that the person knew of the order and wilfully disobeyed it. The order should provide a mechanism to apply for variation or discharge.

North Warwickshire Borough Council commenced fresh proceedings seeking a three-year injunction against persons unknown to prohibit street cruising in its local government area. The application followed an earlier refusal to add the Council to existing Birmingham proceedings by amendment and variation. The Council relied on evidence of racing, dangerous driving, noise, nuisance and associated unlawful activity on highways crossing or near its boundaries.

The central questions were whether the Council had a statutory basis to seek the injunction, whether defendants could properly be described as persons unknown, and whether the proposed order was sufficiently certain, necessary and proportionate.

1. Jurisdiction. The Council was a local authority, highway authority and responsible authority. Sections 222 of the Local Government Act 1972, 130 of the Highways Act 1980, 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, 1 of the Localism Act 2011 and 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 provided a proper statutory basis for the application. The reasoning in Birmingham City Council v Shafi [2008] EWCA Civ 1186 did not preclude relief because it was unclear whether an ASBO or its statutory successor would be available.
2. Persons unknown and safeguards. Following Bloomsbury Publishing Group Ltd and Rowling v News Group Newspapers [2003] 1 WLR 1633, the description of the defendants had to identify with sufficient certainty who was included and excluded. The definition of participating in a street cruise had to be tight, and the order had to be proportionate. Alternative service by signs, press releases, websites and social media was appropriate. It did not remove the need to prove knowledge before any committal for contempt.
3. Merits and proportionality. The evidence established a significant problem in North Warwickshire, including dangerous racing, nuisance and associated criminal activity. A geographically limited injunction was impractical because activity could be displaced to other areas. Although the order interfered with the freedom to use the roads and attend events, much of the conduct was unlawful or tortious and the order operated only when the defined threshold was crossed. It was therefore a proportionate use of the Council’s powers.
4. Order. The injunction was granted for three years, subject to review after 18 months and possible renewal. A power of arrest was attached for drivers, riders and passengers participating actively in a street cruise. Persons served with the order could apply on 48 hours’ written notice to vary or discharge it.