NORTH WARWICKSHIRE BOROUGH COUNCIL v EDRED WHITTINGHAM

In civil contempt proceedings, breach of an injunction must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Sentencing has three objectives: punishment, securing future compliance and rehabilitation. Criminal sentencing guidelines may be used by analogy, but the lower maximum penalty and more limited sentencing powers of the civil court must be recognised. Deliberate, peaceful protest in conscious breach of an injunction may cross the custody threshold. Conscientious motivation does not confer immunity, although it may justify suspending imprisonment where future compliance can be secured. The seriousness of the contempt is assessed by the harm caused or risked, including disruption to lawful activities, the public and police resources. Early admissions may justify a reduction by analogy with criminal sentencing practice.

The claimant brought civil contempt proceedings against six individuals who admitted breaching an interim injunction granted in connection with protests against the production and use of fossil fuels at Kingsbury Oil Terminal. The injunction prohibited participation in protests within defined areas and prohibited obstructing an entrance to the terminal. The defendants admitted obstructing a private access road within the defined area during a peaceful protest on 14 September 2022. The court considered proof of contempt, the appropriate custodial penalty, suspension of imprisonment, credit for time spent on remand, and costs.

1. Contempt established. The defendants’ admissions, together with the claimant’s evidence, proved beyond reasonable doubt that each had breached paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b)(iii) of the interim injunction. The claimant also proved service of the order by the permitted alternative means.
2. Sentencing principles. The court applied the three objectives identified in Willoughby v Solihull MBC [2013] EWCA Civ 699: punishment, securing future compliance and rehabilitation. The Sentencing Council Definitive Guideline could be used by analogy, as indicated in Amicus Horizon Ltd v Thorley [2012] EWCA Civ 817, but the analogy required adjustment to reflect the civil court’s lower maximum sentence and more limited sentencing powers.
3. Seriousness. The breaches were deliberate and fell within culpability category B. Harm was assessed by reference to the disruption of the terminal, obstruction affecting the public highway, inconvenience to workers and the substantial diversion of police resources. The case fell between harm categories 1 and 2 and crossed the custody threshold. Previous convictions aggravated Mr Williams’s case; good character, conscientious motivation, work histories and the absence of previous breaches mitigated the others’ cases.
4. Penalty and suspension. The appropriate starting terms were 56 days’ imprisonment for five defendants and 63 days for Mr Williams. Early admissions reduced those terms to 37 and 42 days respectively. Credit for eight days spent on remand reduced the terms to 21 days and 26 days. Following Cuadrilla Bowland Ltd and Others v Persons Unknown [2020] EWCA Civ 9, and taking account of the defendants’ conscientious motivation and first breach, each term was suspended for two years on condition of compliance with any interim or final injunction relating to protest activity at the terminal.
5. The claimant succeeded on the contempt allegations. Each defendant was ordered to contribute £412.46 towards the claimant’s costs, with payment arrangements reflecting individual means. Each defendant was released from custody, subject to administrative processing and any unrelated custody.

First-instance committal proceedings in the High Court. Each defendant was informed of a right to appeal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) within 21 days.