Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v Anthony Gale & Anor

For civil contempt, the allegations must be proved 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 analogy with criminal sentencing, considering culpability, actual or potential harm, mitigation, early admissions and the effect of committal on dependants. Custody is justified only where a fine is insufficient and must be the shortest term properly reflecting the contempt. A custodial term may be suspended where rehabilitation is realistic and immediate imprisonment would materially affect children or other vulnerable dependants.

Four local authorities obtained an interim injunction prohibiting persons unknown from participating in car cruising involving motor racing, stunts, dangerous driving or obstructive driving in the Black Country. The injunction was served by alternative means and remained in force pending determination of the substantive claim.

Anthony Gale admitted racing a motorcycle at up to 80 miles per hour on a 40-mile-per-hour urban dual carriageway. Wictoria Szczublinska admitted racing another car at approximately 90 miles per hour after travelling with it during the preceding period. The court considered the appropriate penalties for their admitted contempts, including culpability, risk of harm, mitigation, credit for admissions, suspension and costs.

1. Contempt proved. The defendants’ admissions, the claimant’s evidence and video footage established beyond reasonable doubt that each had breached paragraph 1 of the interim injunction. The proceedings remained civil proceedings despite the criminal standard of proof.
2. Sentencing approach. The objectives of civil contempt penalties are, in order, securing future compliance with the order, punishment and rehabilitation. The court adopted by analogy the approach described in Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UK Supreme Court 15, as endorsed in Breen v Esso Petroleum Company Limited [2022] EWCA Civ 1405. Seriousness was assessed by reference to culpability and actual, intended or likely harm. A fine was considered first; custody was imposed only because the conduct crossed the custody threshold.
3. The court assessed culpability as medium. Harm was at the higher end of medium because racing at up to 80 or 90 miles per hour on a 40-mile-per-hour urban dual carriageway, with other road users and spectators nearby, created a very high risk of injury or worse. The absence of actual injury was attributed to good fortune rather than good judgment.
4. Mr Gale received a provisional term of 35 days. Miss Szczublinska received 42 days, reflecting the evidence that she had travelled with the vehicle involved in the racing for nearly two hours beforehand and the slightly higher speed. Both terms included credit for one day already spent in custody and were reduced by one-third for prompt admissions, producing terms of 23 and 28 days respectively.
5. Both terms were suspended for 12 months. Each defendant was of good character, had committed a first breach, expressed remorse and presented a realistic prospect of rehabilitation. Each was also a primary carer, so immediate custody would have had a significant detrimental effect on their child. The suspension was conditional on compliance with the injunction as amended or subsequently amended. There was no order as to costs.

First-instance contempt proceedings concerning admitted breaches of an interim injunction. Each defendant was given a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) within 21 days.