North Warwickshire Borough Council v David Nixon & Anor

When sentencing for contempt arising from breach of a civil injunction, the court must address punishment, securing future compliance and rehabilitation. Criminal sentencing guidelines may provide useful guidance by analogy, but they must be adjusted for the civil court’s lower custodial maximum and more limited sentencing powers. The seriousness of a breach depends on culpability, harm, persistence and aggravating and mitigating factors. Time spent in custody on remand must be deducted from a custodial penalty imposed by the civil court. Where the penalty has already been served, the court may make no further order while recording the equivalent sentence.

David Nixon and Margaret Reid admitted three breaches of an interim injunction concerning protests at Kingsbury Oil Terminal. The injunction prohibited participation in protests within a defined buffer zone and prohibited specified acts connected with protests, including obstruction of the terminal entrance.

The defendants appeared in person and declined legal representation. The court had to determine whether the breaches were proved, the appropriate penalty for contempt, the effect of their admissions and time spent in custody, and costs.

1. Breaches proved. The defendants’ admissions, together with police witness evidence, established each breach beyond reasonable doubt. The criminal standard of proof applied.
2. Sentencing objectives. The court applied the three objectives identified in Willoughby v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council [2012] EWCA Civ 699: punishment, securing future compliance and rehabilitation.
3. Guideline analogy. Although no Sentencing Council guideline governed breach of a civil injunction, the approach in Amicus Horizon Ltd v Thorley [2012] EWCA Civ 817 supported using the criminal Definitive Guideline for breach of a criminal behaviour order by analogy. The court adjusted the criminal starting points and ranges to reflect the two-year maximum under s.14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and the civil court’s more limited sentencing powers.
4. Penalty. The 4 May breach was the lead matter. It was a very serious or persistent breach, aggravated by the defendants being on bail, but involved the lowest harm category. After allowing one-third credit for the admissions, the appropriate penalty was 18 days’ imprisonment. The earlier breaches, considered separately, would not have attracted custody.
5. Remand and orders. Each defendant had spent nine days in custody. The defendants had therefore served the equivalent of the 18-day custodial penalty. The court made no further order on the contempt, recorded the sentence that would otherwise have been imposed, made no order as to costs because the claimant had not provided a costs schedule, and directed that the defendants were eligible for immediate release.