BRAINTREE DISTRICT COUNCIL v JIMMY WILSON & ORS

Contempt sanctions for breach of planning injunctions must be assessed in a manner analogous to criminal sentencing. The court must assess culpability and harm, consider whether a fine is sufficient, impose the shortest custodial term that reflects the seriousness of the contempt, and give proper weight to mitigation, early admission and the effect on dependants. Deliberate and repeated breaches of clear court orders may justify immediate custody even where the underlying feared development has not occurred. A custodial order may nevertheless be suspended where the impact on vulnerable family members makes suspension appropriate, provided suspension is conditional on future compliance.

Braintree District Council applied under CPR 81 to commit Jimmy Wilson for contempt arising from admitted breaches of interim and final injunctions made under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The orders restrained further works and required restoration of land affected by alleged planning breaches.

The admitted breaches concerned importing and spreading topsoil after service of the injunctions and failing to remove unauthorised topsoil and aggregate by the date required. The central issues were the seriousness of the contempts, the appropriate sanction, whether imprisonment should be suspended, and the appropriate financial and costs orders.

1. Liability and applicable framework. The admitted breaches amounted to criminal contempts. The burden of proof in committal proceedings is the criminal standard. Under CPR 81.9, available sanctions include imprisonment, a fine and confiscation. The sanction exercise must be analogous to criminal sentencing, applying the guidance in AG v Crosland [2021] 4 W.L.R. 103.
2. Seriousness. Seriousness is assessed principally by culpability and harm. Relevant matters include whether the breach was deliberate, the contemnor’s knowledge and appreciation of the order, the harm caused or likely to be caused, cooperation, admission, apology, previous character and personal mitigation. The defendant’s repeated continuation of unauthorised works after clear injunctions, together with evasive and untruthful evidence, made culpability high. The breaches harmed the public interest, local residents and the Council’s resources. The absence of the feared caravan park and the fact that some development had occurred before the injunctions limited the harm that could properly be attributed.
3. Custody and suspension. A fine alone would not meet the objectives of punishment, deterrence and coercion. Deliberate non-compliance with court orders may warrant custody: Wokingham BC v Dunn [2014] EWCA Civ 633. The appropriate sentence was three months’ imprisonment for each of four breaches, to run concurrently. No additional term was imposed for the later breach because the totality principle and partial compliance made the three-month term sufficient.
4. The imprisonment order was suspended for 12 months under CPR 81.9(2), conditional on compliance with the restoration order and the order made alongside the judgment. The defendant’s care for elderly parents, including one who was terminally ill, justified suspension. A £5,000 fine was imposed in addition, payable within 12 months, together with an order for the Council’s costs subject to statutory costs protection.