North Warwickshire Borough Council v Eric Hoyland & Ors.

Contempt proceedings for breach of a civil injunction require proof beyond reasonable doubt. In fixing the penalty, the court should consider punishment, securing future compliance and rehabilitation. Criminal sentencing guidelines may be used by analogy, but the court must account for the lower sentencing powers available for civil contempt.

In protest cases, conscientious motivation may justify suspending a custodial sentence where the custody threshold is crossed. Repeated breaches, however, may make immediate imprisonment necessary to secure compliance. Harm must be assessed from the actual circumstances, including disruption, obstruction, effects on the public and demands placed on police resources.

The claimant sought committal of four individuals for admitted breaches of an interim injunction prohibiting protests against fossil-fuel production or use at Kingsbury Oil Terminal. The defendants had participated in a peaceful protest which obstructed a private access road within the injunction’s defined area and prevented vehicular access to the terminal.

The court considered whether the breaches were proved to the criminal standard and, if so, the appropriate penalties. It also considered the use of criminal sentencing guidelines by analogy, the effect of conscientious protest motives, previous breaches, early admissions and time spent in custody, and whether the sentences should be suspended.

1. Contempt proved. The defendants’ admissions, considered with the claimant’s evidence, established beyond reasonable doubt that each had breached paragraphs 1(a), 1(b)(iii) and 1(b)(xi) of the injunction. The three breaches arose from the same conduct and did not require separate penalties.
2. Penalty principles. 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 the best available analogy, although sentences had to be scaled down to reflect the civil court’s maximum two-year custodial power and its more limited sentencing powers. The unimplemented Civil Justice Council draft guidelines were not adopted.
3. Culpability and harm. The conduct was deliberate and fell within culpability category B. The protest disrupted the terminal for at least four and a half hours, obstructed oil tankers and some workers, affected the public highway and required substantial police resources, including mutual aid. Harm was therefore assessed between categories 1 and 2.
4. Conscientious protest. Following the approach in Cuadrilla Bowland Ltd and Others v Persons Unknown [2020] EWCA Civ 9, the court accepted that the conduct was conscientious and that suspension could be appropriate even where the custody threshold was crossed. Sentences for Hoyland, Rennie-Nash and Morgan were suspended for two years on condition of compliance with relevant injunctions. Naidu’s repeated third breach required immediate imprisonment for 34 days.
5. After one-third credit for early admissions and deduction for time in custody, the terms were 25 days for Hoyland, 30 days for Rennie-Nash, and 34 days each for Morgan and Naidu. Hoyland, Rennie-Nash and Morgan were ordered to contribute £412.46 towards the claimant’s costs; Naidu was excused costs because of his immediate incarceration and limited means.

not stated in the judgment.