NORTH WARWICKSHIRE BOROUGH COUNCIL v MOLLY BERRY & Anor.

Contempt arising from breach of a civil injunction is proved to the criminal standard. When fixing the penalty, the court must consider punishment, securing future compliance and rehabilitation. Criminal sentencing guidance may provide useful guidance by analogy, but the court must account for the different statutory maximum, available sanctions and nature of the civil injunction. Culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating factors, guilty-plea credit and the contemnor’s means remain relevant. The penalty must be proportionate to the breach and the individual’s financial circumstances.

The claimant sought penalties against two defendants who admitted breaching an interim injunction made in proceedings concerning protests against fossil-fuel production or use at Kingsbury Oil Terminal. The defendants were persons unknown covered by the order, rather than named defendants. Each had participated in a protest within the injunction’s buffer zone and later obstructed the terminal access road.

The court considered the appropriate approach to contempt penalties, including the relevance by analogy of criminal behaviour-order sentencing guidance, the statutory limit under Contempt of Court Act 1981, the defendants’ means, guilty-plea credit and costs.

1. Admissions and breach. The court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that each defendant breached the interim injunction on 26 April 2022. The order applied to persons unknown organising, participating in or encouraging protests against fossil fuels in the specified locality. The defendants’ protest occurred within the buffer zone, and they subsequently obstructed the terminal road.
2. Objectives of penalty. Following Willoughby v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council [2012] EWCA Civ 699, the court considered punishment, securing future compliance and rehabilitation. Those objectives guide the exercise of the contempt jurisdiction.
3. Sentencing guidance. The criminal Definitive Guideline for breach of a criminal behaviour order was useful by analogy, applying Amicus Horizon Ltd v Thorley [2012] EWCA Civ 817. The analogy required caution because criminal breach carried a five-year maximum, whereas section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 imposed a two-year maximum for civil contempt, and criminal courts had sanctions unavailable in the civil courts. Draft Civil Justice Council guidance was not yet in force.
4. Assessment. Each breach was deliberate and fell within culpability category B, towards its lower end. Each caused little or no harm or distress and fell within harm category 3. The breach shortly followed the injunction and Ms Shah’s dated conviction for obstructing the highway were aggravating factors. Ms Berry’s good character, the defendants’ environmental motivation and their early admissions were mitigating factors. A 25 per cent reduction was allowed for the admissions.
5. Penalty and costs. A fine was the appropriate penalty. Having considered the defendants’ limited, but not very limited, means, each was fined £450, payable in full by 1 June 2022. No order for costs was made because the claimant had failed to provide a costs schedule, preventing an informed summary assessment.