Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v Rebecca Richold

In civil contempt proceedings, the allegation must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, although the proceedings remain civil. Penalties should primarily secure future compliance, followed by punishment and rehabilitation.

When sentencing contempt arising from breach of an anti-social behaviour injunction, the Lovett sentencing matrix may be applied by analogy where appropriate. The court should assess culpability and actual, intended or risked harm, then consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances, credit for admissions and whether imprisonment should be suspended. A serious first breach may justify a custodial sentence, but suspension may be appropriate where there is a realistic prospect of rehabilitation and future compliance.

The defendant admitted breaching an interim High Court injunction prohibiting participation in specified car-cruising activities in the Black Country. The breach occurred when she drove with other vehicles and engaged in racing on an urban road.

The court determined the disputed speed on the video and police evidence, then considered the appropriate penalty for the admitted contempt. The central issues were the applicable sentencing approach, the seriousness of the breach, credit for the defendant’s admissions, and whether any custodial sentence should be suspended.

1. Contempt proved. The claimants bore the burden of proving the contempt beyond reasonable doubt. The proceedings nevertheless remained civil proceedings. The defendant’s admission established that she had breached the injunction by racing with other vehicles within the prohibited area and time. The video evidence did not establish that she was travelling at 75 to 80 miles per hour, but it showed very significant speeding.
2. Sentencing approach. The objectives of penalties for civil contempt are, in order, ensuring future compliance, punishment and rehabilitation, as stated in Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631. The court adopted the approach summarised in Attorney-General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15 and endorsed in Breen v Esso Petroleum Company Limited [2022] EWCA Civ 1405. Following Birmingham City Council v Lloyd [2023] EWCA Civ 1355, the Lovett matrix could be used by analogy for contempt involving anti-social conduct.
3. Assessment of seriousness. The defendant’s culpability was category B because the racing was deliberate. The harm fell within category 2, towards its higher end, because high-speed racing on a busy urban dual carriageway created an obvious risk of serious harm, even though no injury or property damage occurred. The starting point for a category B2 case was one month’s imprisonment, within a range from adjourned consideration to three months.
4. Aggravation and mitigation. Aggravating factors included the defendant’s participation with others earlier that evening and her travel from Worcester to attend the events. Significant mitigation included her age of 19, lack of previous convictions or cautions, good character, co-operation, remorse, strong employment record and evidence that she had changed her behaviour.
5. Penalty. The seriousness of the breach meant that only custody would suffice. The provisional sentence was 36 days, reduced by 25 per cent to 27 days to reflect the defendant’s admissions, including her fuller admission shortly before the hearing. The sentence was suspended for 12 months on condition that she complied with the injunction as amended, or any subsequent amended injunction remaining in force. There was no order as to costs, subject to a public funding assessment.

First-instance contempt sentencing decision. The defendant was informed of a right to appeal the suspended committal order to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) within 21 days.