NORTH WARWICKSHIRE BOROUGH COUNCIL v JONATHAN COLEMAN & ANOR.

For contempt consisting of a deliberate breach of an injunction, the court should assess the penalty by reference to three objectives: punishment, securing future compliance, and rehabilitation. Sentencing guidelines may provide a useful analogy, although they do not apply directly in the civil courts and the court’s sentencing powers differ. Culpability, harm, admission of breach, personal means and the circumstances of the breach should be evaluated individually. A wholly peaceful breach causing little or no harm may justify a fine rather than imprisonment. The amount must reflect the contemnor’s financial circumstances, so different fines may be appropriate for the same breach.

The defendants admitted one breach of an interim injunction made in connection with protests against fossil-fuel production and use at Kingsbury Oil Terminal. They had protested peacefully within a five-metre buffer zone prohibited by the order. Police advised them to move outside the zone, but they refused and were arrested under the order’s power of arrest.

The court determined the appropriate penalties for contempt, applying the civil contempt objectives and considering the relevance, by analogy, of the Sentencing Council Definitive Guidelines. It also addressed the effect of the defendants’ early admissions, culpability, harm, financial means and costs.

1. The defendants’ admitted breaches of the interim injunction were proved to the criminal standard. Each breach was deliberate, notwithstanding that the protest was wholly peaceful and would have been lawful had the defendants moved outside the five-metre buffer zone.

2. In determining penalty for contempt, the court applied the three objectives identified in Willoughby v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council [2012] EWCA Civ 699: punishment, securing future compliance where possible, and rehabilitation.

3. The Sentencing Council Definitive Guidelines were relevant by analogy, following Amicus Horizon Ltd v Thorley [2012] EWCA Civ 817. They did not apply directly because the proceedings were civil, the court had different sentencing powers, and community disposals were unavailable.

4. The breach fell within culpability category B because the defendants acted deliberately. It fell within harm category 3 because it caused little or no harm or distress. Their previous convictions for obstructing free passage did not significantly aggravate the breach. Their admissions at the earliest opportunity warranted the maximum one-third reduction contemplated by the guideline.

5. The appropriate penalty for each defendant was a fine. The fine had to reflect individual means, so different defendants could properly receive different penalties for the same factual breach. Mr Coleman was fined £600, payable in full by 1 June 2022. Mr Johnson was fined £300, payable at £20 per month from 1 June 2022.

6. The claimant’s costs schedule related to hearings and defendants not involved in this matter. No relevant costs schedule having been served, there was no order as to costs.