NORTH WARWICKSHIRE BOROUGH COUNCIL v RAJAN NAIDU

Penalties for civil contempt serve three objectives: punishment, securing future compliance with court orders, and rehabilitation. In assessing the penalty for breach of a civil injunction, the court may use relevant criminal sentencing guidelines by analogy, while recognising the different powers and maximum penalties available in the civil and criminal courts. The court should assess culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating features, means, and any reduction for an early admission. Time spent in custody must be considered when deciding whether a further financial penalty would be unjust.

North Warwickshire Borough Council brought contempt proceedings against Rajan Naidu for two admitted breaches of an interim injunction concerning protests at Kingsbury Oil Terminal. The first breach occurred within the injunction’s former buffer zone. The second involved congregating or encouraging others to congregate at the terminal entrance after the buffer zone had been removed.

The court had to determine the appropriate penalty, taking account of the deliberate nature of the breaches, their low level of harm, aggravating and mitigating factors, the defendant’s means, his early admissions, and six days spent in custody.

1. Contempt objectives. The objectives of penalties for contempt are punishment, securing future compliance with court orders where possible, and rehabilitation. The court applied the formulation in Willoughby v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 699.
2. Sentencing guideline analogy. Although no Sentencing Council guideline directly governed breach of a civil injunction, the Definitive Guideline for Breach of a Criminal Behaviour Order was relevant by analogy, following the approach in Amicus Horizon Ltd v Thorley [2012] EWCA Civ 817. The court recognised that criminal courts have greater sentencing powers and a higher maximum custodial penalty.
3. Both breaches were deliberate and fell within culpability category B. They caused little or no harm or distress and fell within harm category 3. The second breach was more serious because it occurred shortly after the first breach, while the defendant was on bail and after he had failed to attend court.
4. The defendant’s good character, limited means, moral motivation, and early admissions were mitigating factors. The early admissions justified a one-third reduction. The appropriate penalties, had the defendant not spent time in custody, would have been fines of £400 and £666 respectively after reduction.
5. Six days in custody was treated as equivalent to a 12-day sentence and was more onerous than the penalties otherwise appropriate. It would therefore have been unjust to impose fines in addition. No order was made on either breach, and there was no order as to costs.

not stated in the judgment.