NORTH WARWICKSHIRE BOROUGH COUNCIL v SARAH WEBB

Penalties for contempt of a civil injunction pursue punishment, securing future compliance and rehabilitation. Criminal sentencing guidelines may provide useful guidance, but they require adaptation to the civil court’s lower maximum sentence and more limited disposals. The court must assess culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating features, and credit for admissions. Time spent in custody must be taken into account so that the overall result remains just and proportionate. Where custody already served is more onerous than the financial penalty warranted by the breaches, the court may make no further order.

Sarah Webb appeared in the High Court following two admitted breaches of an interim injunction concerning protests near Kingsbury Oil Terminal. The breaches occurred on 26 April and 4 May 2022. The injunction prohibited protest activity within a five-metre buffer zone and certain conduct in the locality of the terminal.

The court considered the appropriate penalties, having regard to the criminal Definitive Guideline for Breach of a Criminal Behaviour Order, the defendant’s culpability and harm, aggravating and mitigating factors, her admissions, means and time spent in custody.

1. Breaches proved. The defendant’s admissions and the police evidence established both breaches to the criminal standard of proof. The first breach involved peaceful protest within the buffer zone. The second involved a further deliberate breach while on bail and on the day she failed to attend court.
2. Objectives of penalty. The court applied the objectives identified in Willoughby v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 699: punishment, securing future compliance with court orders and rehabilitation.
3. Guideline framework. Following Amicus Horizon Ltd v Thorley [2012] EWCA Civ 817, the criminal guideline for breach of an antisocial behaviour order was relevant. It was not a complete analogy because the civil court’s maximum sentence was lower and it lacked the full range of community disposals. The injunction was also not an antisocial behaviour injunction in the statutory sense.
4. Both breaches fell within culpability category B and harm category 3. Each therefore attracted a starting point of a high-level community order, with a range from a low-level community order to 26 weeks’ custody. The second breach was aggravated by its proximity to the first breach, the breach of bail and the failure to attend court. The defendant’s good character and admissions reduced the appropriate penalty.
5. On the defendant’s modest means, financial penalties of £450 and £600 would otherwise have been appropriate. However, eight days spent in custody were equivalent to 16 days’ imprisonment and were more onerous than the penalties warranted. The court therefore made no further order on the breaches, while recording the custody already served and the notional financial penalties.
6. No order for costs was made because the claimant had failed to provide a costs schedule, placing the defendant at a disadvantage in responding to the application.