North Warwickshire Borough Council v Diane Hekt & Anor.

In sentencing for civil contempt arising from breach of a civil injunction, the court should consider three objectives: punishment, securing future compliance and rehabilitation. Criminal sentencing guidelines may be used by analogy, but the sentence must reflect the civil court’s lower maximum penalty and more limited sentencing powers. Deliberate, peaceful protest undertaken for conscientious reasons may still justify custody where the contempt is sufficiently serious. However, where custody is appropriate, suspension may often be justified, particularly for a first breach, subject to future compliance with the injunction. Harm includes disruption to the protected activity, interference with the public, and diversion of substantial police resources.

The defendants admitted breaching an interim injunction prohibiting participation in specified protests against fossil-fuel production at Kingsbury Oil Terminal. Their peaceful protest obstructed a private access road within the area covered by the injunction, preventing vehicular access and requiring the arrest and processing of numerous protesters.

The court was required to determine the appropriate penalties for the admitted civil contempts, including the significance of conscientious motives, the assessment of culpability and harm, the effect of previous convictions, suspension of imprisonment, and costs.

1. Contempt established. The claimant proved the breaches to the criminal standard, namely beyond reasonable doubt. The defendants’ admissions were made at the earliest reasonable opportunity.
2. Sentencing principles. The court applied the three objectives identified in Willoughby v Solihull MBC: punishment, securing future compliance and rehabilitation. The Sentencing Council guideline for breach of a criminal behaviour order could be used by analogy, as indicated in Amicus Horizon Ltd v Thorley, but the analogy was incomplete. Civil contempt has a maximum custodial penalty of two years and the civil courts lack the full range of criminal sentencing powers.
3. Culpability and harm. The defendants’ conduct fell within culpability category B because it was deliberate and undertaken with knowledge of the injunction. Harm fell between categories 1 and 2. The court considered the prolonged obstruction of the terminal, interference with public movement, the prevention of a worker leaving for a medical appointment, and the substantial diversion of police resources.
4. Conscientious protest. Following Cuadrilla Bowland Ltd v Persons Unknown, conscientious motives did not prevent custody where the contempt crossed the custody threshold. They remained relevant to mitigation and to whether imprisonment should be suspended.
5. Penalty and suspension. Custody was the only appropriate penalty. After credit for admissions and deduction for time in custody, the defendants were each subject to 25 days’ imprisonment. Each term was suspended for two years on condition of compliance with interim or final injunctions concerning protest activity at Kingsbury Oil Terminal.
6. The defendants were each ordered to pay £412.46 towards the claimant’s costs by monthly instalments.

The judgment was a first-instance committal decision. It records that the defendants had a right to appeal to the Court of Appeal Civil Division within 21 days.