North Warwickshire Borough Council v Peter Morgan

[2022] EWHC 1331 (QB)

Case details

Case citations
[2022] EWHC 1331 (QB)
Court
High Court (Queen's Bench Division)
Judgment date
19 May 2022
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Civil procedure Injunctions Contempt of court
Keywords
breach of injunction deliberate breach civil injunction sentencing culpability and harm fine custody costs
Outcome
no further order as to penalty; defendant ordered to pay £250 towards costs
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

A deliberate breach of a civil injunction may be sanctioned by a fine, assessed by reference to culpability and harm. The sentencing guidelines for breaches of Criminal Behaviour Orders do not apply directly, but may guide the assessment. A civil court cannot impose a criminal community order. Time spent in custody may provide sufficient punishment, so that no further penalty is required.

Factual background

The defendant admitted facts establishing that he knowingly and deliberately breached an injunction. The court assessed the seriousness of the breach by reference to culpability and harm, using the sentencing guidelines for breaches of Criminal Behaviour Orders as guidance. It then considered the appropriate penalty, the effect of the defendant’s previous convictions for similar protest activity, and the time already spent in custody.

Held

  1. The court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had breached the injunction and that the breach was deliberate.
  2. The sentencing guidelines for breach of a Criminal Behaviour Order did not apply directly because this was a breach of a civil injunction. They were nevertheless a guide to the appropriate sanction. The court assessed culpability as category B and harm as category 3.
  3. The guidelines indicated a Community Order, but the court had no power to impose one because the matter was civil rather than criminal. A fine was therefore the appropriate available sanction. The indicated fine was £800, calculated from a starting point of £1,200 less one third for the defendant’s admission.
  4. The defendant’s previous convictions related to protest activity which the court accepted was undertaken pursuant to his perceived moral imperative concerning climate change. They did not justify increasing the fine.
  5. Imprisonment was a more severe penalty than a fine. The six days already spent in custody were sufficient punishment. No further order was made in relation to the penalty, and the defendant was released.
  6. The defendant was ordered to pay £250 towards the claimant’s costs within 28 days.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.