Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v Sikander Hussain

A deliberate breach of an anti-social behaviour injunction involving dangerous street cruising may justify immediate custody where the conduct creates a very high risk of significant harm. The court should assess culpability and harm, then take aggravating and mitigating features into account. Suspension is ordinarily considered as a means of securing future compliance, particularly for a first appearance for breach, but the court must assess the offender’s actual ability to comply. Early admission may attract maximum credit. A costs order may remain enforceable against a legally aided defendant where the statutory costs protection does not apply.

The defendant admitted contempt by breaching an injunction prohibiting participation in dangerous or obstructive driving gatherings in the Black Country area. He admitted racing another vehicle at about 80 miles per hour while straddling and obstructing both lanes of an urban dual carriageway. The court was satisfied that the injunction had been properly served and that the contempt was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The central issues were the appropriate sentencing category, the effect of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, whether the committal sentence should be suspended, and liability for the claimant’s costs.

1. Contempt established. The injunction had been validly served. The defendant’s admission, together with video and witness evidence, proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had breached paragraph 4 by racing, undertaking and driving at speed during the prohibited hours and within the defined geographical area.
2. Sentencing approach. The court adopted, by analogy, the approach in Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631, which had been endorsed in Birmingham City Council v Lloyd [2023] EWCA Civ 1355. The breach fell within culpability B and category 2 harm. The assessment included actual harm and harm intended or at risk of being caused.
3. The dangerous driving created a very high risk of significant harm to the defendant, spectators, other participants and innocent road users. Aggravating features included a previous police warning, recent conviction for excess alcohol, driving while disqualified and uninsured, and initial provision of false identifying details. Mitigation included the early admission, cooperation, family support, mental-health conditions and absence of previous convictions.
4. A fine or deferred consideration would not sufficiently punish conduct of this seriousness. The sentence before credit was 56 days’ imprisonment. One-third credit for the admission reduced it to 37 days, with time in custody taken into account.
5. Because this was the defendant’s first appearance for breach of the injunction, and he had family support and no longer had access to the vehicle, the sentence was suspended for 12 months on condition of compliance with the injunction. A further breach would likely result in activation of the suspended sentence.
6. The defendant was ordered to pay the third claimant’s assessed costs of £1,700.30 by instalments of £100 per month. The costs order was enforceable because Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, section 26, did not provide him with costs protection.

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