North Warwickshire Borough Council v Shelia Shatford & Ors

In civil contempt proceedings arising from breach of an injunction restraining protest activity, the court must apply the criminal standard of proof. Penalty is assessed by reference to the objectives of punishment, securing future compliance and rehabilitation. Sentencing guidelines for analogous criminal orders may assist, but must be adjusted to reflect the civil court’s lower sentencing powers and the different nature of the injunction. Deliberate, peaceful protest undertaken for conscientious reasons may still cross the custody threshold where the disruption and demands on public resources are substantial. Nevertheless, imprisonment may appropriately be suspended where the defendants have no previous breach of the injunction and future compliance can be secured.

The claimant obtained an interim injunction restraining protests against fossil fuels at Kingsbury Oil Terminal. The order was varied on notice and served by alternative means. Five defendants admitted breaching the injunction by participating in a peaceful protest which obstructed access to the terminal. One defendant made a limited admission accepted by the claimant.

The court determined the contempt allegations, the appropriate penalty, whether imprisonment should be suspended, and the claimant’s costs. The central issues were the seriousness of the deliberate obstruction, the relevance of conscientious motivation, the use of criminal sentencing guidance by analogy, and the proper response within the civil court’s sentencing jurisdiction.

1. The defendants’ admissions, together with the police evidence, established the breaches beyond reasonable doubt. Although the proceedings were civil, the criminal standard of proof applied because they concerned contempt of court.
2. Following Willoughby v Solihull MBC [2013] EWCA Civ 699, the penalty had to address punishment, securing future compliance and rehabilitation. The criminal guideline for breach of a criminal behaviour order was the best available analogy, as indicated by Amicus Horizon Ltd v Thorley [2012] EWCA Civ 817. The analogy required adjustment because the civil court’s maximum imprisonment for contempt was two years and it lacked the full range of criminal community orders.
3. The conduct was deliberate and fell within culpability category B. Harm was assessed between categories 1 and 2. The protest obstructed the terminal for several hours, affected access by vehicles, closed part of the public highway and required substantial police resources, including mutual aid. The absence of evidence of specific business loss meant that such loss was not separately taken into account.
4. The contempt crossed the custody threshold. A sentence of 56 days’ imprisonment was reduced to 37 days for admissions at the first reasonable opportunity and then to 23 days after credit for time spent on remand.
5. The approach in Cuadrilla Bowland Ltd v Persons Unknown [2020] EWCA Civ 9 supported recognition of conscientious motivation and suspension of imprisonment in appropriate cases of peaceful civil disobedience. The sentences were therefore suspended for two years, conditional on compliance with injunctions concerning protest activity at the terminal. The defendants remained free to protest outside the prohibited area, subject to the order’s other terms.
6. The claimant was awarded £320.77 from each defendant as a contribution to costs, payable either by instalments or in full according to each defendant’s means.

Not stated in the judgment. The defendants were informed of a right to appeal the committal order to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) within 21 days.