Birmingham City Council v Aakaash Changaz

In contempt proceedings for breach of an anti-cruising injunction, the claimant must prove the breach to the criminal standard. Sentencing should assess culpability and harm, including both actual harm and the risk of harm. Relevant aggravating factors must be considered without double counting matters already reflected in the harm category.

Where the contempt passes the custody threshold, imprisonment may be appropriate. A custodial sentence may ordinarily be suspended where suspension is likely to secure compliance with the underlying injunction and there is a realistic prospect of rehabilitation.

Birmingham City Council obtained an injunction prohibiting street cruising in Birmingham. The defendant was within a category of persons unknown covered by the injunction and accepted that he had been validly served.

On 16 February 2025 he drove at excessive speed on a public highway, raced another vehicle and caused a nuisance, thereby admitting contempt. The court considered proof of the breach, the appropriate sentencing approach, the categorisation of culpability and harm, mitigation, suspension, and costs.

1. Contempt proved. The defendant’s admissions, the police evidence and video footage established beyond reasonable doubt that he breached paragraph 1 of the injunction by participating in a street cruise involving dangerous or excessive-speed driving and racing another vehicle. The conduct caused danger to road users, a risk of property damage and nuisance to others (para 18).
2. Sentencing framework. The court followed by analogy the guidance in Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631. That use of the guidance in street-cruising cases had been endorsed in Birmingham City Council v Lloyd [2023] EWCA Civ 1355 (para 19).
3. Culpability and harm. The breach fell within category B culpability because it was deliberate but relatively short-lived and was the defendant’s first breach. Harm fell within category 2, at the upper end. The court considered both the limited actual harm and the significant risk of serious harm, including fatalities. Darkness and rain increased the risk (paras 20–22).
4. Aggravation and mitigation. Speed was not treated as a further aggravating factor because it had already been taken into account in assessing harm; doing so would risk double counting. The defendant’s earlier presence at other cruising locations was aggravating. His good character, first breach, remorse, steps to sell the vehicle and family circumstances were mitigating (paras 24–29).
5. Sentence. The contempt passed the custody threshold. The appropriate sentence was 48 days’ imprisonment, reduced to 32 days for the maximum credit for admission. It was suspended for 12 months, conditional on compliance with the current or any amended final injunction, because suspension was the appropriate means of securing compliance and there was a good prospect of rehabilitation (paras 30–32).
6. Costs. The claimant was entitled to its costs. The claimed solicitor preparation costs were reduced by £854.56 as disproportionate, and payment was permitted at £50 per month, subject to increased payments if the defendant’s finances improved (paras 33–35).

First-instance decision. The judgment records that any appeal from the suspended order of committal lies to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) and must be filed within 21 days (para 36).