NORTH WARWICKSHIRE BOROUGH COUNCIL v KATE BRAMFITT

In civil contempt proceedings arising from breach of an injunction, the court must sentence by reference to the purposes of punishment, securing future compliance and rehabilitation. The Sentencing Council’s criminal guidelines may be used by analogy, but civil penalties must reflect the lower sentencing powers available for contempt. The court should assess culpability and harm by reference to the particular breach, including disruption to lawful activities, public inconvenience and demands on police resources. Peaceful protest undertaken for conscientious reasons may justify suspending a custodial penalty, but it does not prevent imprisonment being imposed where the breach crosses the custody threshold. A first breach will ordinarily be a significant factor in favour of suspension.

The defendants admitted breaching an interim injunction prohibiting protest activity and specified acts of obstruction at Kingsbury Oil Terminal. The claimant proved service of the injunction and established the breaches to the criminal standard of proof. The defendants had participated in a large, peaceful protest which obstructed access to the terminal and resulted in substantial police resources being deployed.

The court had to determine the appropriate sanctions for contempt, including culpability, harm, mitigation, credit for admissions, time spent on remand, suspension of imprisonment and costs.

1. The defendants’ admissions, together with the claimant’s evidence, established beyond reasonable doubt that each defendant breached the injunction. The relevant breaches concerned participation in a prohibited protest, obstruction of the terminal entrance and assisting or encouraging prohibited acts.
2. In determining the penalty for civil contempt, the court applied the three objectives identified in Willoughby v Solihull MBC: punishment, securing future compliance and rehabilitation. The approach in National Highways Limited v Buse & others was adopted.
3. The Sentencing Council’s Definitive Guidelines could be used as an analogy, consistently with Amicus Horizon Ltd v Thorley and Cuadrilla Bowland Ltd & Ors v Persons Unknown. The analogy was limited because the civil court had different sentencing powers and a maximum term of two years’ imprisonment.
4. The breaches fell within culpability category B. Harm was assessed between categories 1 and 2. The court considered the prolonged obstruction of the terminal, interference with a worker’s medical journey, public inconvenience caused by closure of part of the highway, and the substantial diversion of police resources.
5. The contempt was sufficiently serious to cross the custody threshold. Relevant previous convictions aggravated the cases of Ms Eagling and Ms Mercer. The defendants’ early admissions, lack of previous convictions in the other cases, conscientious motives and generally law-abiding character were mitigating factors.
6. After credit for admissions and time spent on remand, terms of 24 days’ imprisonment were imposed on Ms Eagling and Ms Mercer, and terms of 19 days’ imprisonment on Ms Bramfitt, Ms Norton and Ms Calland. Each term was suspended for two years on condition of compliance with any interim or final injunction concerning protest activity at the terminal.
7. The claimant was entitled to its costs. Costs of £412.46 were ordered against each defendant, payable in full or by instalments according to means.

The judgment records a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal Civil Division within 21 days. No prior appellate decision is stated.