NORTH WARWICKSHIRE BOROUGH COUNCIL v MICHELLE CHARLESWORTH

Penalties for contempt must reflect the distinct purposes of punishment, securing compliance with court orders and rehabilitation. Sentencing guidelines are not binding in civil contempt proceedings, but a guideline for an analogous offence may provide useful assistance, subject to differences in the relevant elements and statutory maxima. Peaceful protest and civil-disobedience considerations may justify suspending imprisonment for serious breaches of injunctions. They do not require suspension where conduct deliberately interferes with the administration of justice, undermines the court’s authority and demonstrates poor compliance with court orders.

Michelle Charlesworth admitted two breaches of an interim injunction protecting Kingsbury Oil Terminal and one contempt in the face of court. The injunction prohibited protest within a defined buffer zone. The breaches involved peaceful protest within that zone. The further contempt occurred when she glued herself to the dock screen after being produced in court, causing substantial disruption and delay.

The court had to determine the appropriate penalty, including whether imprisonment should be suspended, how the breaches should be treated in the totality assessment, and the credit due for her admissions and time spent on remand.

1. Contempt proved and sentencing objectives. The admissions and supporting evidence established the contempts to the criminal standard of proof. The relevant sentencing objectives were punishment, securing future compliance with court orders and rehabilitation, as identified in Willoughby v Solihull MBC [2013] EWCA Civ 699.
2. Applicable sentencing guidance. Sentencing Council guidelines are not binding in civil contempt proceedings. However, a guideline for an analogous offence may assist, provided account is taken of differences in the elements and statutory maxima. The breach of criminal behaviour order guideline was therefore a useful analogy for the injunction breaches, following Amicus Horizon Ltd v Thorley [2012] EWCA Civ 817 and Cuadrilla Bowland v Persons Unknown [2020] EWCA Civ 9.
3. Assessment of culpability and harm. The contempt in the face of court involved deliberate and substantially planned conduct, high culpability and significant harm because it caused several hours’ disruption, diverted court and police resources and risked undermining the court’s authority. The injunction breaches were deliberate and planned but caused little or no harm, placing them in a lower category. They did not individually justify custody.
4. Totality and penalty. The two injunction breaches were treated as aggravating features of the more serious contempt in the face of court, with no separate penalty imposed for them. The contempt crossed the custody threshold. The starting penalty was 14 weeks’ custody, reduced by one third for the earliest admissions to 63 days, then reduced by 30 days to reflect time spent on remand. The resulting penalty was 33 days’ immediate imprisonment.
5. Suspension. The court considered the greater clemency sometimes appropriate for peaceful civil disobedience, as explained in Cuadrilla Bowland v Persons Unknown [2020] EWCA Civ 9. That reasoning did not justify suspension here. The conduct in court struck at the administration of justice and the rule of law, and the defendant’s history showed poor compliance with court orders. Immediate custody was therefore necessary and there was no separate order for the two injunction breaches.

The judgment states that an appeal from the committal order lies to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) and must be filed within 21 days. No appellate decision is stated.