Birmingham County Council v Callum Blunderfield

Sentencing for civil contempt has three objectives, in descending priority: securing future compliance with the order, punishment and rehabilitation. The court must assess the seriousness of the contempt by considering culpability and actual, intended or likely harm. Where custody is necessary, the shortest term that properly reflects the seriousness of the breach should be imposed, with appropriate credit for an early admission and proper consideration of mitigation. Suspension of custody may be justified where there is a realistic prospect of future compliance and rehabilitation. Sentencing guidance developed for other civil injunction proceedings may be used by analogy, but the analogy must not be treated as complete where the risk of harm is materially different.

The defendant admitted breaching an interim injunction prohibiting participation in street cruises within Birmingham. The breach involved racing at speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour in a 40 mile per hour zone, dangerous driving and passing through red traffic lights. The court had previously determined that valid alternative service of the amended injunction and power of arrest had taken place.

The issue was the appropriate penalty for the admitted civil contempt, including the relevance of culpability, risk of harm, mitigation, an early admission, suspension of imprisonment and costs.

1. The defendant’s admission established contempt to the criminal standard. The proceedings remained civil proceedings, although the allegation had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Following Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA (Civ) 1631, the sentencing objectives were, in order of priority, future compliance with the injunction, punishment and rehabilitation.

3. The seriousness of the contempt was assessed by reference to culpability and harm, including intended or likely harm. The conduct involved deliberate and planned dangerous driving, concealment of part of the registration plate and an exceptionally high risk of danger to road users, pedestrians and property. The breach was therefore at the higher end of medium culpability and the higher end of the harm scale.

4. The guidance in Breen v Esso Petroleum Company Limited [2022] EWCA (Civ) 1405, reflecting the approach summarised in Attorney-General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15, was applied. A fine, no order or deferred consideration was insufficient. The appropriate custodial term before credit was 70 days. A one-third reduction for the early admission produced 46 days, with credit also given for time already spent in custody.

5. By a narrow margin, the 46-day sentence was suspended for 12 months. The defendant’s youth, good character, stable employment, remorse and steps towards rehabilitation created a realistic prospect of future compliance. The suspension was conditional upon compliance with the injunction as amended or subsequently amended.

6. Following Secretary of State for Transport v Cuciurean [2022] EWCA (Civ) 661, criminal legal aid for contempt proceedings did not attract the civil legal-aid costs protection in section 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The defendant was ordered to pay £1,000 towards the claimant’s costs by 4 pm on 30 November 2023.

First-instance decision. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.