NORTH WARWICKSHIRE BOROUGH COUNCIL v LUCIA WHITTAKER DE ABREU & ANOR.

For breach of a civil injunction, sentencing should address punishment, securing future compliance and rehabilitation. Criminal sentencing guidelines may assist by analogy, but the court must account for the civil court’s more limited powers and the particular injunction involved. Culpability, harm, aggravating features, admissions, means and time already spent in custody are relevant. Time in custody may make a further fine unjust where the breaches would otherwise warrant only a financial penalty. Costs ordinarily follow the event, and lack of parity with earlier defendants does not justify refusing costs where the claimant has properly quantified them.

The claimant obtained a without-notice interim injunction restricting protests at and near Kingsbury Oil Terminal. The defendants, Lucia Whittaker De Abreu and Alyson Lee, each admitted two breaches, occurring on 27 April and 4 May 2022. The breaches involved peaceful protest within the injunction’s five-metre buffer zone. The second breach occurred while the defendants were on bail and had failed to attend court.

The court had to determine the appropriate penalties for contempt, taking account of the defendants’ admissions, means and nine days spent in custody, and whether each defendant should contribute £195 towards the claimant’s costs.

1. The defendants’ admissions established the four allegations of contempt to the criminal standard, namely beyond reasonable doubt.
2. In determining penalty, the court applied the objectives identified in Willoughby v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council [2012] EWCA Civ 699: punishment, securing future compliance with the court’s orders and rehabilitation.
3. The Sentencing Council’s definitive guidelines could be used by analogy. Following Amicus Horizon Ltd v Thorley [2012] EWCA Civ 817, criminal guidelines could be relevant to civil breaches, but adjustments were required because the civil courts have more limited sentencing powers. The injunction was not an antisocial behaviour injunction under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, although its objectives had relevant parallels.
4. Both breaches fell within culpability category B and harm category 3. The first breach attracted a starting point of £600, reduced to £450 for the admission. The second, aggravated by breach while on bail and failure to attend court, attracted a starting point of £900, reduced to £600.
5. Those figures would otherwise have resulted in fines. However, the defendants had each spent nine days in custody, treated as equivalent to an 18-day sentence. Imposing a fine in addition would be unjust, so no further penalty was imposed. The order recorded that custody was the reason no fine was made.
6. The defendants were ordered to pay £195 each towards the claimant’s costs. Costs followed the event, and the claimant’s properly prepared and proportionate schedule justified an order despite different outcomes for defendants dealt with earlier.