Anderson & Ors v Basildon District Council

In contempt proceedings arising from deliberate breaches of injunctions and planning controls, a later order extending time for compliance does not erase liability for breaches of an earlier order. Pandemic restrictions do not prevent compliance where moving is reasonably necessary to fulfil a legal obligation. Continued development in breach of a court order cannot be justified by those restrictions. Where breaches are admitted, brazen and continuing, suspended imprisonment and compliance conditions may be appropriate. Personal and humanitarian circumstances must be considered, but an appellate court will not interfere where they were taken into account and suspension and generous compliance periods were provided.

Eight appellants had occupied Green Belt land and carried out development despite injunctions, enforcement notices and stop notices. Following admitted breaches, the High Court made committal orders on 12 February 2021, imposing suspended custodial sentences of between four and eight months, subject to conditions requiring the removal of caravans, cessation of occupation and removal of works.

The appellants challenged the sentences and conditions. They argued that a later injunction displaced earlier breaches and that Covid-19 restrictions made compliance unlawful or practically impossible. The earlier injunction proceedings are reported at [2020] EWHC 3382 (QB). The central issues were whether the breaches remained punishable, whether the restrictions supplied a reasonable excuse, and whether the sentence and compliance timetable properly reflected the appellants’ circumstances.

1. Appeal dismissed. The committal orders and suspended sentences were a proper response to calculated, admitted and continuing breaches of court orders against a background of serious defiance of planning controls. The sentences were the least that could reasonably have been imposed, and suspension was more favourable to the appellants than the circumstances required.
2. Earlier order remained effective. The order of Cutts J was not superseded by the later order of Foxton J. The later compliance date merely reflected the passage of time. The appellants could therefore be sentenced for breaches occurring before the later date.
3. Covid-19 restrictions. Regulation 10 and Schedule 3A Part 1 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020 did not prevent compliance. Moving from the land pursuant to a court order would plainly constitute a reasonable excuse, including moving house or fulfilling a legal obligation. The restrictions did not require, and could not justify, continuing development in breach of the orders. The declarations inserted into the order were not strict declarations, but a well-meaning attempt to assist the appellants.
4. Personal circumstances and timing. The sentencing judge had taken account of health, Covid-19 uncertainty and other human factors. The periods allowed for compliance were generous, and the decision fell within the sentencing discretion. The maximum term for contempt of court was two years.
5. Final orders. Condition (a) was varied so that the caravans and mobile homes had to be removed by noon on 22 March 2021. The deadline of 10 April 2021 for removal of the works remained. The court warned that further applications would be treated as successive applications and dismissed or refused in accordance with Woodhouse v Consignia plc [2002] EWCA Civ 275.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — The appeals were dismissed. The committal orders were upheld, condition (a) was varied to require removal by noon on 22 March 2021, and condition (c) remained subject to the deadline of 10 April 2021.
• High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division) — Mr Anthony Metzer QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, imposed suspended committal sentences on 12 February 2021 for admitted breaches of injunction orders, subject to conditions requiring removal of caravans, cessation of occupation and removal of works.