NORTH WARWICKSHIRE BOROUGH COUNCIL v Stephanie Pride & Anor.

In proceedings for contempt arising from breaches of a civil injunction, the court must be satisfied of the breach to the criminal standard of proof. In determining penalty, the relevant objectives are punishment, securing future compliance and rehabilitation. Criminal sentencing guidelines may provide useful guidance by analogy, although the court must account for differences between criminal and civil jurisdiction, including maximum sentences and available orders. Deliberate breaches may attract substantial culpability, but harm, persistence, mitigation, admissions and the contemnor’s means must be assessed individually. Fines may therefore differ between defendants who committed similar breaches.

Stephanie Pride and Gwen Harrison were dealt with for admitted breaches of an interim injunction made on 14 April 2022 by Sweeting J. The injunction prohibited persons unknown from organising or participating in protests against fossil fuels within a defined area around Kingsbury Oil Terminal and prohibited obstruction connected with such protests.

Both defendants participated in a protest within the prohibited buffer zone on 26 April 2022. Ms Harrison admitted a further breach on 28 April 2022. The issues were whether the breaches were proved and, if so, the appropriate penalties and costs.

1. Breaches proved. The court was required to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. The defendants’ admissions, together with the police evidence, established Ms Pride’s breach on 26 April 2022 and Ms Harrison’s breaches on 26 and 28 April 2022.
2. Penalty principles. Applying Willoughby v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council [2012] EWCA Civ 699, the court identified the objectives as punishment, securing future compliance and rehabilitation. The criminal Definitive Guideline for breach of a criminal behaviour order was relevant by analogy, following Amicus Horizon Ltd v Thorley [2012] EWCA Civ 817. The court distinguished the guideline’s context, noting that criminal courts could impose a sentence of up to five years and community orders, whereas the maximum for contempt under s.14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 was two years and the civil court lacked those sentencing options.
3. Culpability and harm. The deliberate breaches fell within culpability B and the lowest harm category, involving little or no harm or distress. Ms Harrison’s second breach, committed two days after the first and while on bail, was aggravating, but was not sufficiently persistent to justify movement to culpability A.
4. Mitigation and means. Both defendants’ environmental motivation, admissions at the first opportunity and limited means were taken into account. Each received a one-third reduction by analogy with the guilty-plea guideline. The appropriate penalties were fines of £400 for each defendant’s 26 April breach and a further £500 fine for Ms Harrison’s 28 April breach.
5. Orders. Ms Pride was required to pay £400 by 4pm on 1 June 2022. Ms Harrison was required to pay £900 by instalments of £100 per month, beginning by 4pm on 1 June 2022. No order for costs was made because the claimant had failed to provide a costs schedule, preventing an informed summary assessment.