North Warwickshire Borough Council v Simon Reding & Anor.

Contempt of a civil injunction must be proved to the criminal standard. In fixing the penalty, the court must address punishment, securing future compliance and rehabilitation. Criminal sentencing guidelines may provide useful guidance by analogy, but the court must account for differences between criminal and civil sanctions, including differing maximum penalties and available sentencing options. The seriousness of the breach is assessed by culpability and harm, with aggravating and mitigating factors taken into account. An early admission may justify a reduction. Any fine must reflect the contemnor’s means. Although costs generally follow the event, the court may make no order where the successful party’s failure to provide a costs schedule prevents an informed assessment.

North Warwickshire Borough Council brought contempt proceedings against Simon Reding and Catherine Rennie-Nash for admitted breaches of an interim injunction granted by Sweeting J on 14 April 2022. The injunction prohibited persons unknown from organising, participating in or encouraging protests against fossil-fuel production or use within a defined area around Kingsbury Oil Terminal.

Both defendants admitted that they had participated in a protest within the prohibited buffer zone and had obstructed access to the terminal. The court determined whether the breaches were proved, the appropriate penalties, and the claimant’s application for costs.

1. Proof of contempt. Each breach had to be established beyond reasonable doubt. The defendants’ admissions, together with the police witness evidence, satisfied that standard.
2. Objectives of penalty. Applying Willoughby v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council [2012] EWCA Civ 699, the relevant objectives were punishment, securing future compliance with the court’s orders and rehabilitation.
3. Guideline analogy. The criminal Definitive Guideline for breach of a criminal behaviour order could provide useful guidance by analogy, following Amicus Horizon Ltd v Thorley [2012] EWCA Civ 817. The analogy required caution because the criminal maximum was five years, the civil maximum under section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 was two years, and criminal courts had sentencing options unavailable in the civil courts. The injunction was not an anti-social behaviour injunction in the statutory sense.
4. Assessment of penalty. The deliberate breaches fell within culpability B, towards its lower end, and harm category 3. The defendants’ early admissions justified a one-third reduction by analogy with the guilty-plea guideline. Their limited means required the fines to be set at a level reflecting their individual financial circumstances.
5. Orders. Each defendant was fined £400, payable by instalments of £20 per month, with the first payment due by 4 pm on 1 June 2022. No order for costs was made. Although costs ordinarily follow the event, the claimant’s failure to file or serve a costs schedule prevented an informed summary assessment and disadvantaged both the defendants and the court.