Teighmore Ltd & Anor v Bone & Ors

A person may be committed for contempt only where the relevant order is clear and unambiguous, bears a penal notice, has been effectively served, was capable of compliance, and was deliberately breached. The applicant bears the burden of proving the breach to the criminal standard.

Sentencing for civil contempt serves both to uphold the authority of the court and, where possible, to encourage compliance. Imprisonment is the court’s ultimate sanction and must be imposed only for the shortest period necessary. Deliberate planning, high culpability, harm to the public interest, publicity, lack of remorse and aggravating consequences may justify immediate custody, while youth, good character, admissions and remorse may reduce the sentence.

Teighmore Limited and LBQ Fielden Limited applied to commit George Henry King-Thompson for breaching an injunction prohibiting unauthorised entry to or presence at The Shard. The injunction had been made on 8 February 2018 and contained a penal notice.

Mr King-Thompson, an urban explorer, admitted that he had climbed the exterior of The Shard on 8 July 2019. He accepted that he had known of the injunction before the climb. The issues were whether the breach was proved to the criminal standard and, if so, what sentence was necessary and proportionate.

1. Contempt established. The court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr King-Thompson knowingly, deliberately and contumaciously breached the injunction. The order contained a penal notice, had been effectively brought to his attention, and was clear and capable of compliance. His admissions, preparation and conduct established an intentional breach rather than an inadvertent one.
2. Applicable principles. A committal application requires proof of the deliberate breach to the criminal standard. Because imprisonment may follow, the order must be construed strictly and its terms must be clear and unequivocal. The public interest in obedience to court orders is an important consideration, but custody remains the court’s ultimate weapon and must be used sparingly.
3. Sentencing. Civil contempt sentencing has a dual purpose: upholding the authority of the court and, where possible, encouraging compliance. The court considered prejudice, pressure, deliberateness, culpability, responsibility for the breach, appreciation of seriousness, co-operation, admissions, apology, remorse and reasonable excuse. Mr King-Thompson’s culpability was high. The harm included the serious public interest in enforcing injunctions, risk to life and encouragement of similar dangerous conduct, compromised building security and disruption at London Bridge Station.
4. The aggravating features were meticulous planning, assistance from others and extensive publicity despite knowledge of the injunction. His age, previous good character, ADHD, late admission and recent remorse were mitigating, but ADHD was explanatory rather than exculpatory and the remorse was given little weight. The breach crossed the custody threshold. A sentence of immediate detention was necessary because the contempt could not be purged. The court imposed 24 weeks’ detention in a Young Offenders’ Institution, with release after half the sentence.