North Warwickshire Borough Council v El Litten & Ors.

Contempt of an injunction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of the order, breached it, and knew that the relevant acts breached it. Articles 10 and 11 rights do not provide a defence to breach where those rights were considered when the injunction was granted. Peaceful and conscientious protest may be relevant to sanction, particularly whether imprisonment should be suspended, but it does not excuse deliberate disobedience. Sentencing for civil contempt should pursue punishment, future compliance and rehabilitation. Criminal sentencing guidelines may be used by analogy, adjusted to reflect the lower maximum penalty and the civil context.

The claimant applied to commit six protestors for contempt of an interim injunction concerning protests at Kingsbury Oil Terminal. The injunction prohibited participation in specified protests within a marked area and prohibited obstructing an entrance to the terminal. The defendants were arrested after participating in a peaceful protest which blocked access to the terminal.

At trial, the defendants accepted the material facts but argued that the injunction should not be enforced because it infringed their rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and because of the climate emergency. The court determined liability and then imposed sanctions for contempt.

1. Liability. The claimant had to prove contempt beyond reasonable doubt. The applicable elements were knowledge of the order, acts which breached it, and knowledge that those acts breached it, applying the guidance in National Highways Limited v Buse [2021] EWHC 3404 and Varma v Atkinson [2020] EWCA Civ 1602. Service had been properly effected by the alternative methods authorised by the injunction, and each defendant knew that it remained in force.
2. Each defendant had participated in a prohibited protest within the marked area, obstructed an entrance to the terminal, and assisted the others in blocking the access road. The claimant therefore proved breaches of paragraphs 1(a), 1(b)(iii) and 1(b)(xi) of the injunction.
3. Articles 10 and 11 were engaged, but did not determine whether the defendants had breached the order. Those rights had been considered and balanced when the injunction was granted. The defendants could raise those issues at the final hearing of the substantive injunction claim, but they could not rely on them as a defence to contempt.
4. Sentence. The court applied the three objectives identified in Willoughby v Solihull MBC [2013] EWCA Civ 699: punishment, securing future compliance and rehabilitation. The Sentencing Council guideline for breach of a criminal behaviour order was adopted as the best analogy, following Amicus Horizon v Thorley [2012] EWCA Civ 817, but sentences had to be reduced to reflect the civil context and the lower maximum term of imprisonment.
5. The guidance in Cuadrilla Bowland Ltd and Others v Persons Unknown [2020] EWCA Civ 9 and National Highways Limited v Buse supported suspension of imprisonment for first-time, peaceful civil disobedience motivated by conscientious reasons. Five defendants received 30-day terms suspended for two years on condition of compliance with relevant injunctions. Michelle Charlesworth, whose repeated contempts demonstrated persistent non-compliance, received 128 days’ immediate imprisonment. Each defendant was ordered to contribute £1,415.77 towards the claimant’s costs, payable according to individual means.

Not stated in the judgment.