National Highways Limited v Aaron Gunning & Ors

In civil contempt proceedings arising from deliberate protest activity, sanction is determined by the particular facts. The court must assess culpability and harm, then consider all relevant circumstances, including mitigation, cooperation, admissions, apology and personal circumstances. Conscientious motives may justify a lesser sanction, but they do not provide a licence to disobey court orders. A custodial threshold may be met notwithstanding substantial mitigation, while suspension may be appropriate where it best serves punishment, future compliance and rehabilitation. Where a breach is technical because the defendant lacked knowledge of the injunction, no penalty may be imposed.

National Highways Limited applied to commit 14 defendants for contempt of court for breaching an injunction restraining persons associated with Just Stop Oil from entering, remaining on or affixing themselves to structures on the M25. Twelve defendants agreed to provide two-year undertakings, and the court approved those compromises. The remaining defendants, Jan Goodey and Nicholas Onley, admitted breach. Goodey learned of the injunction only after reaching the gantry; Onley knew of it before acting. The court therefore determined the appropriate sanction, considering the conduct, disruption, admissions, apologies, personal mitigation and related criminal sentences.

1. Compromise. The court approved the agreed disposal of the applications against 12 defendants. Each undertaking was for two years. The terms represented a fair and appropriate balance between the parties and the public interest. In the absence of agreement, the court would have found a technical breach but imposed no penalty where lack of knowledge was established.
2. General principles. There is no tariff for contempt sanctions. The court has a broad discretion directed to punishment, future compliance and rehabilitation. It must assess culpability and harm, then consider all relevant circumstances, including deliberateness, prejudice, cooperation, admissions, apology, character and personal mitigation. Imprisonment is reserved for cases passing the custody threshold and must be as short as commensurate with the gravity of the breach.
3. Protest motivation. Conscientious motives may be relevant to mitigation and rehabilitation. They do not authorise disobedience to court orders.
4. Onley. His deliberate conduct, prior knowledge, severe disruption and risks to the public made culpability and harm high. The custody threshold was passed. His admissions, voluntary departure, undertaking, apology, cooperation and responsibility for his elderly mother justified suspension. After one-third credit for admission, the appropriate term was 24 days, suspended for two years on the terms imposed in the earlier proceedings.
5. Goodey. Because he learned of the injunction only after reaching the gantry, had served a six-month prison sentence for public nuisance, apologised and gave assurances about future conduct, no further penalty was imposed.

First-instance committal applications in the High Court. The judgment records earlier decisions in the same litigation, including [2023] EWHC 3000 (KB) and [2024] EWHC 566 (KB), which supplied background principles.