North Warwickshire Borough Council v Pamela Williams & Ors

In civil contempt proceedings arising from breach of an injunction, the claimant must prove the contempt beyond reasonable doubt. Sentencing must address punishment, securing future compliance and rehabilitation. Criminal sentencing guidelines may provide a useful analogy, but the lower maximum penalties and different powers of the civil courts require appropriate adjustment. Deliberate, peaceful protest in knowing breach of an injunction may justify custody where the contempt crosses the custody threshold. Conscientious motives remain relevant to mitigation and may support suspension of the custodial term, particularly where the breach is a first offence and future compliance can be secured.

The claimant sought committal of three defendants for contempt following their admitted participation in a protest at Kingsbury Oil Terminal. The defendants obstructed access to the terminal in breach of an interim injunction granted by Sweeting J and varied on 6 May 2022. Two defendants also admitted encouraging conduct prohibited by the injunction.

The court determined whether the breaches were proved, the appropriate custodial penalty, whether imprisonment should be suspended, and the defendants’ liability for costs. The protest was peaceful and undertaken for conscientious reasons, but it caused substantial disruption and required significant police resources.

1. Contempt proved. The claimant had proved the breaches beyond reasonable doubt. The defendants’ admissions and the evidence established breaches of paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b)(iii) of the injunction, with additional breaches of paragraph 1(b)(xi) by Pamela Williams and Susan Hampton.
2. Sentencing approach. The court applied the three objectives identified in Willoughby v Solihull MBC [2013] EWCA Civ 699: punishment, securing future compliance and rehabilitation. The criminal guideline for breach of a criminal behaviour order was adopted by analogy, following the approach indicated in Amicus Horizon Ltd v Thorley [2012] EWCA Civ 817. The analogy required adjustment because civil contempt carries a maximum sentence of two years and the civil courts have fewer sentencing powers.
3. Culpability and harm. Each case fell within culpability category B. The harm was assessed between categories 1 and 2, having regard to the prolonged obstruction of the terminal and highway, interference with access and egress, the effect on a worker requiring medical attention, and the substantial diversion of police resources. The absence of evidence of specific business loss meant that no further business impact was included.
4. Penalty and suspension. The contempt was sufficiently serious to warrant custody. The starting term was 56 days’ imprisonment, reduced to 37 days for early admissions and to 25 days to reflect time spent in custody. Applying the guidance in Cuadrilla Bowland Ltd v Persons Unknown [2020] EWCA Civ 9, the terms were suspended for two years on condition of compliance with any injunction concerning protest activity at Kingsbury Oil Terminal. The court accepted the defendants’ conscientious motives but emphasised that lawful protest remained possible outside the injunction’s boundary.
5. Each defendant was ordered to pay £412.46 towards the claimant’s costs, payable by instalments of £25 per month.