Birmingham City Council v Mohammad Shabbir

For civil contempt, the penalty should secure future compliance first, punish the breach second and promote rehabilitation third. The court should assess seriousness by reference to culpability and actual, intended or likely harm, using criminal sentencing concepts by analogy where no civil-contumacy guideline applies. A fine is insufficient where breach of a High Court injunction creates a serious risk to the public and only custody properly reflects the contempt. Credit should be given for an admission, but its amount depends on its timing. A custodial sentence may be suspended where rehabilitation is realistic and suspension supports continued employment and compliance.

The claimant local authority brought contempt proceedings against the defendant for breaching an interim injunction prohibiting participation in street cruises in Birmingham. The defendant admitted congregating with other vehicles, driving at excessive speed in an urban 40-mile-per-hour zone, undertaking vehicles and causing another vehicle to brake.

The court found that the injunction and power of arrest had been validly served and that the breach was proved to the criminal standard. The issues were the appropriate penalty, the relevance of culpability and harm, credit for the admission, suspension of imprisonment and costs.

1. Contempt established. The defendant’s admissions, the claimant’s evidence and the CCTV and police body-worn-camera footage established beyond reasonable doubt that he participated in a street cruise contrary to the interim injunction. The court sentenced only on the proved conduct at and after the petrol station, not on earlier alleged involvement.
2. Sentencing principles. The objectives of civil-contempt penalties, in order of priority, are future compliance, punishment and rehabilitation, following Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631. The approach endorsed in Breen v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1405 and summarised in Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15 was applied by analogy. The court considered culpability, harm, whether a fine sufficed, the shortest proper custodial term, mitigation, early admission and suspension.
3. Culpability and harm. Culpability was assessed in the middle range because the breach was deliberate, but there was no evidence of planning or organisation and the defendant had participated for only a modest period. Harm was also assessed in the middle range. Excessive-speed driving during a street cruise created an obvious risk of serious harm, but the driving was better characterised as careless than dangerous and did not involve the highest level of risk, such as performing stunts near pedestrians.
4. Penalty. A fine or deferred consideration was insufficient. The seriousness of breaching a High Court injunction while driving at speed in a busy urban area required custody. The provisional term of 35 days was reduced by 10 per cent for the admission, producing 31 days. The admission was made on the day of trial and therefore attracted limited credit.
5. Suspension and costs. The 31-day sentence was suspended for 12 months on condition of compliance with the injunction as subsequently amended. The defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed. Secretary of State for Transport v Cuciurean [2022] EWCA Civ 661 confirmed that Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, section 26 did not provide costs protection for civil legal aid in contempt proceedings.

Not an appeal. The judgment itself records earlier interlocutory orders and a prior finding that alternative service had taken place, but no appellate decision.