Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v Isa Iqbal

In civil contempt proceedings, the objectives of a penalty are, in order, securing future compliance, punishment and rehabilitation. The court may assess harm by reference to both actual harm and the harm intended or at risk. Culpability and harm remain relevant when sentencing for breach of an injunction, but a sentencing matrix developed for a different statutory context must be used cautiously. A deliberate dangerous driving stunt on a public road may justify custody where the risk of injury is high. A first breach, early admission, remorse and realistic prospects of rehabilitation may justify suspending the custodial sentence.

Four local authorities obtained an interim injunction prohibiting specified forms of car cruising and dangerous driving in the Black Country. The injunction was amended to include persons unknown who participated in gatherings involving motor racing, motor stunts or dangerous or obstructive driving.

Mr Iqbal admitted that, on 28 May 2023, he was driving within the relevant area and briefly performed a drifting manoeuvre while present in a gathering of two or more people. He disputed that he drove away at high speed. The issue was the appropriate penalty for his admitted contempt, including the effect of culpability, risk of harm, aggravating and mitigating features, admission and rehabilitation.

1. The court confirmed that the first claimant bore the burden of proving contempt beyond reasonable doubt, although the proceedings remained civil proceedings.

2. Following Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631, the sentencing objectives were, in order, securing future compliance with the injunction, punishment and rehabilitation. The approach to assessing sanctions endorsed in Breen & Ors v Esso Petroleum Company Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1405, adopting the principles summarised in Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15, was also adopted.

3. The Civil Justice Council sentencing matrix could provide useful concepts of culpability and harm, but the guidance in Lovett was directed to breaches under the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014. This case did not arise under that Act. The matrix therefore required cautious use, particularly because car cruising created an unusually high risk of harm.

4. The admitted drifting was deliberate and amounted to medium culpability. Harm was assessed by reference to the risk created, not merely harm actually caused. Performing a drift on an urban dual carriageway, near other road users and spectators, created a high risk of loss of control and injury. The court also considered aggravating and mitigating features, including previous driving convictions, the first breach, the delay, remorse, poor health and caring responsibilities.

5. Only custody was proportionate. The provisional sentence of 42 days’ imprisonment was reduced to 28 days to reflect the admission. The sentence was suspended for 12 months on condition that Mr Iqbal complied with the interim injunction as amended. There was no order as to costs because the first claimant had failed to provide a schedule suitable for summary assessment.

First-instance contempt sentencing decision. The judgment records that the interim injunction was initially granted by Hill J on 22 December 2022 and amended by Ritchie J on 19 May 2023.