Birmingham City Council v Zoe Lloyd

In civil contempt proceedings, the claimant must prove contempt beyond reasonable doubt, although the proceedings remain civil. Penalties should principally secure future compliance, followed by punishment and rehabilitation. The court should assess seriousness by reference to culpability and harm, including intended or risked harm, while using criminal sentencing concepts only by analogy. A fine is insufficient where the contempt is so serious that custody is required; the shortest proper term should be imposed, with appropriate credit for an early admission and consideration of suspension. A suspended custodial sentence may be suitable for a first contempt where rehabilitation is realistic.

Birmingham City Council brought contempt proceedings against Zoe Lloyd for breaching an interim injunction prohibiting participation in street cruises in Birmingham. The injunction had been granted on 22 December 2022 and amended on 19 May 2023. Ms Lloyd admitted that she had raced another vehicle from traffic lights, thereby participating in a street cruise within the injunction’s terms.

The court considered service, the appropriate penalty for the admitted contempt, the relevance of culpability, harm, mitigation and early admission, and the claimant’s application for costs.

1. Proof and service. The claimant had to establish contempt beyond reasonable doubt. The proceedings nevertheless remained civil. Although one step in the alternative-service order had not been completed because it was technically impossible, the court waived compliance with that step and was satisfied that the amended injunction and power of arrest had been validly served.
2. Sentencing objectives. The objectives identified in Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631 applied although the present case did not arise under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014: future compliance, punishment and rehabilitation, in that order.
3. Seriousness. Following Breen v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1405 and Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UK SC 15, the court assessed seriousness by analogy with criminal sentencing, considering culpability and harm. The breach involved a deliberate acceleration race in an urban 30 mile an hour area with other traffic. Culpability and harm were each assessed as medium. Harm included serious harm intended or risked, not merely harm actually caused.
4. A fine or deferred consideration would not sufficiently penalise the breach. A custodial penalty was required. The provisional term of 21 days was reduced to 14 days for the defendant’s early admission and was suspended for 12 months because this was her first contempt and rehabilitation was realistic.
5. The claimant was entitled to a £1,000 contribution towards costs under CPR 44.2(2). Section 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 did not provide costs protection to a person receiving criminal legal aid for contempt proceedings.