NORTH WARWICKSHIRE BOROUGH COUNCIL v WILLIAM WHITE & Ors

In civil contempt proceedings, contempt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Penalty serves three objectives: punishment, securing future compliance with the order and rehabilitation.

Criminal sentencing guidelines may be used by analogy, but the analogy is incomplete. The court must account for the lower sentencing powers available for civil contempt and assess culpability, harm, aggravating features and mitigation.

Peaceful protest undertaken for conscientious reasons may justify suspending a custodial sentence, particularly where imprisonment is a first custodial penalty. It does not prevent imprisonment where deliberate breach of a court order crosses the custody threshold.

The claimant brought contempt proceedings against six defendants who admitted breaching an interim injunction regulating protest activity at Kingsbury Oil Terminal. The injunction prohibited participation in specified protests within a defined area and prohibited obstructing an entrance to the terminal.

The defendants had gathered peacefully on a private access road within the restricted area, obstructing vehicular access for several hours. The court determined the appropriate penalties, including the effect of previous breaches, previous convictions, guilty pleas and time spent in custody.

1. Contempt proved. Civil contempt had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The admissions, together with the claimant’s evidence, established each defendant’s breach.
2. Objectives of penalty. The court applied the guidance in Willoughby v Solihull MBC [2013] EWCA Civ 699: punishment, securing future compliance and rehabilitation.
3. Sentencing analogy. The Sentencing Council guideline for breach of a criminal behaviour order could be used by analogy, consistently with Amicus Horizon Ltd v Thorley [2012] EWCA Civ 817. The analogy required adjustment because civil contempt carried a maximum sentence of two years and did not provide the full range of criminal sentencing powers. Draft civil guidelines were not used.
4. Culpability and harm. The defendants’ deliberate conduct placed the case in culpability category B. The prolonged obstruction of the terminal, interference with a worker’s travel, disruption to the public highway and substantial diversion of police resources placed harm between categories 1 and 2. The contempt therefore crossed the custody threshold. Previous breaches aggravated the sentences, and Mr Hewes’s relevant convictions further increased seriousness. The defendants’ conscientious motives, good character and early admissions mitigated the penalties.
5. Suspension. Applying Cuadrilla Bowland Ltd v Persons Unknown [2020] EWCA Civ 9, conscientious motives did not prevent custody, but supported suspension where appropriate. All six custodial terms were suspended for two years on condition of compliance with relevant injunctions concerning protest activity at the terminal.
6. The resulting terms were 21 days for Mr Bailie and Mr Springorum, 26 days for Mr White, Mr Coleman and Ms Shah, and 30 days for Mr Hewes, after credit for time in custody. Each defendant was ordered to contribute £412.46 towards the claimant’s costs.

First-instance contempt proceedings before the High Court. The judgment records that the underlying interim injunction had been granted by Sweeting J on 14 April 2022 and varied by order dated 6 May 2022. Each defendant retained a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal Civil Division within 21 days.