NORTH WARWICKSHIRE BOROUGH COUNCIL v NICHOLAS ONLEY

In civil contempt proceedings, the court must prove the breach to the criminal standard. Sentencing should address punishment, securing future compliance and rehabilitation. Criminal sentencing guidelines may be used by analogy, but civil penalties must reflect the different powers and lower maximum sentence available to the civil court. Each contemnor’s culpability, harm, aggravating features and mitigation must be assessed separately. Deliberate, peaceful protest undertaken for conscientious reasons may justify suspending a custodial sentence where the custody threshold is crossed, particularly for a first breach. Repeated breaches may justify immediate imprisonment.

The claimant obtained an interim injunction restricting protests and specified conduct at Kingsbury Oil Terminal. The seven defendants admitted breaching the injunction on 14 September 2022 by participating in a peaceful protest which obstructed access to the terminal. The claimant proved the breaches beyond reasonable doubt.

The court had to determine the appropriate sanctions for civil contempt, including the relevance of the defendants’ conscientious motives, the scale and consequences of the protest, previous breaches and convictions, the use of criminal sentencing guidelines by analogy, suspension of imprisonment and costs.

1. Contempt established. The defendants’ admissions and the evidence proved breaches of the injunction beyond reasonable doubt. The proceedings were civil, but the criminal standard of proof applied because they concerned contempt.
2. Sentencing framework. The court adopted the three objectives identified in Willoughby v Solihull MBC [2013] EWCA Civ 699: punishment, securing future compliance where possible and rehabilitation. The Sentencing Council Definitive Guidelines could be used as the best criminal analogy, as endorsed in Amicus Horizon Ltd v Thorley [2012] EWCA Civ 817, National Highways Ltd v Buse & others [2021] EWHC 3404 (QB) and Cuadrilla Bowland Ltd & Ors v Persons Unknown [2020] EWCA Civ 9. The analogy required scaling down because the civil court’s maximum imprisonment was two years and its sentencing powers differed from those of the criminal courts.
3. Culpability and harm. The court assessed each defendant separately. Persistent breaches were category A culpability; first or deliberate breaches were category B. The large-scale obstruction caused substantial disruption to the terminal, affected the public highway and imposed significant demands on policing resources. The harm fell between categories 1 and 2, although not squarely within category 1.
4. Conscientious protest. The defendants’ motives were conscientious. That did not prevent custody where the contempt crossed the custody threshold, but the guidance in Cuadrilla supported suspending imprisonment for civil disobedience, especially where there was a first breach and a realistic prospect of future compliance.
5. Orders. Four first-time contemnors received 19-day terms, suspended for two years. A second-time contemnor received 28 days, also suspended for two years. Two defendants with four breaches within five months received immediate terms of 85 and 75 days. Five defendants were ordered to pay £412.46 each towards the claimant’s costs; payment directions reflected their financial circumstances.

Not stated in the judgment.