Adam (formerly known as Michael Merrill) v Cheshire East Council

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's challenge to a High Court committal order for contempt of an injunction made under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The judge had found, to the criminal standard, that the appellant and his wife intentionally breached three clear requirements of the injunction and that the appellant's factual and legal defences (including that he was not a "person", that the land was "God's land", and that the absence of red edging on the plan excused non‑compliance) were unsustainable. The judge applied the usual sentencing approach for contempt (culpability and harm; custody threshold; least committal period; consideration of suspension) and imposed 12 months' imprisonment suspended for 12 months with conditions; the Court of Appeal held that the findings of fact, the legal conclusions about personhood and ownership, and the sentencing exercise were correct and the appeal was dismissed.

This is an appeal from a High Court committal order arising from breaches of an injunction obtained by Cheshire East Borough Council under section 187B Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Background and procedural history:

• An enforcement notice was issued to the appellant in September 2014; failure to comply led to a Crown Court conviction in May 2017 under section 179(2) T&CPA. A planning contravention notice followed in June 2017.
• The Council applied for an injunction by Part 8 procedure; on 3 October 2022 the High Court granted an injunction requiring cessation of residential use, demolition of specified buildings and removal of hardstanding, with restoration by 3 August 2023. The plan annexed to the order erroneously omitted a red edging but the parties and judge treated the order as understood by the defendants.

Issues considered:

• Whether the appellant could properly be treated as a "person" for the purposes of planning legislation (he argued he was not a person).
• Whether the appellant's claimed religious status and assertion that the land belonged to God meant he was not bound by the injunction or could not comply.
• Whether the absence of red edging on the plan annexed to the injunction invalidated the committal proceedings or excused non‑compliance.
• Whether the sentencing decision was disproportionate.

Court's reasoning and conclusions:

• The Court applied recent authority on statutory interpretation of "person" and the Interpretation Act 1978: the statutory definition extends the ordinary meaning and does not exclude human beings; therefore the appellant's argument that he was not a person was unsustainable.
• The Land Registry records established the appellant as registered proprietor; his religious beliefs did not negate legal ownership or exempt him from the planning regime or the injunction.
• The omission of red edging on the copy of the plan was an error but the judge, having heard the evidence and the parties, was entitled to find the defendants understood the injunction and intentionally defied it; the Court would not overturn that factual finding.
• On sentencing the judge properly assessed culpability and harm, concluded the custody threshold was passed for the appellant, and sensibly suspended the term on the basis of staged compliance; the Court found the sentence proportionate and dismissed the appeal on all grounds.

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's findings that the appellant and his wife intentionally breached a clear injunction made under section 187B T&CPA; the appellant's novel arguments (that he is not a "person", that the land belongs to God, and that the absent red line excused non‑compliance) were rejected as legally and factually unsustainable. The sentencing exercise was properly conducted and the suspended custodial sentence was proportionate.

Appeal from the High Court (King's Bench Division, Manchester District Registry), His Honour Judge Bird, QB-2022-MAN-000181. Underlying procedural history includes an enforcement notice issued 4 September 2014 and a Crown Court conviction for failure to comply (Chester Crown Court, 5 May 2017) under section 179(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990; injunction granted 3 October 2022; committal/finding of contempt 11 January 2024 and sentence 26 January 2024; this appeal decided 12 March 2024 ([2024] EWCA Civ 536).