NORTH WARWICKSHIRE BOROUGH COUNCIL v JOE HOWLETT

For admitted breaches of a civil contempt injunction, the court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the breach occurred. Penalties pursue punishment, securing future compliance and rehabilitation. Criminal sentencing guidelines may provide a useful analogy, but they are not directly applicable to civil contempt and must be adapted to the different maximum sentence and available sanctions. Deliberate breaches, timing, breach while on bail and failure to attend court may aggravate culpability. Limited harm and absence of significant inconvenience may reduce seriousness. A defendant’s belief that protest activity was justified is not a defence to breach of a High Court injunction and provides little mitigation. Time spent in custody may make a further fine unjust.

The claimant brought contempt proceedings against the defendant for two admitted breaches of an interim injunction concerning protests at Kingsbury Oil Terminal. The first breach involved protesting within the original buffer zone. The second involved entering the terminal, remaining there after being asked to leave and climbing a tree, contrary to the injunction as varied.

The court considered the appropriate penalty, including the objectives of contempt sanctions, the relevance of criminal sentencing guidelines, the seriousness and harm caused by each breach, aggravating factors, guilty-plea credit and time spent on remand.

1. The two breaches were proved beyond reasonable doubt on the defendant’s admissions. The injunction prohibited specified protest activity within the terminal area and, initially, within a five-metre buffer zone.
2. The objectives of a contempt penalty are punishment, securing future compliance with court orders where possible, and rehabilitation, as stated in Willoughby v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 699.
3. The Sentencing Council’s criminal guidelines were not directly applicable to civil contempt. They nevertheless provided a useful analogy, subject to the different two-year maximum sentence and the more limited range of sanctions available in the civil courts. The conduct was assessed as deliberate, within culpability category B and, because it caused little or no harm or distress, within harm category 3.
4. The breach on 12 May was more serious because it involved trespass within the terminal, occurred whilst the defendant was on bail and followed failure to attend court. The defendant’s belief that his conduct was justified by opposition to fossil fuels was not a defence and afforded little mitigation, although the lack of real harm, distress or significant inconvenience was taken into account.
5. After credit for admissions, the appropriate penalties would have been fines of £400 for the first breach and £800 for the second. The defendant’s six days in custody represented the equivalent of a 12-day sentence and was more severe than the financial penalties warranted. It would therefore be unjust to impose fines as well. No further order was made on either breach, and there was no order as to costs.

Not stated in the judgment.