Muhammad Aksahin v London Borough of Enfield

In proceedings for breach of an anti-car-cruising injunction, passenger status does not prevent a finding of participation. The passenger’s presence in another car cruiser’s vehicle may be strong evidence of participation because it encourages the showing-off central to the activity. Where an injunction has been properly served in accordance with its terms, a defendant cannot plead lack of knowledge of its existence in committal proceedings, although actual knowledge may affect sanction. A prior warning under the Police Reform Act 2002 may be relevant to knowledge, participation, credibility and culpability. Costs are a matter of wide discretion. Ability to pay need not be considered in determining costs liability, although instalments may reflect means. Procedural fairness is satisfied where an unrepresented litigant understands the procedure, communicates effectively and has a fair opportunity to present their case.

The London Borough of Enfield obtained an injunction against persons unknown prohibiting participation as a driver, rider or passenger in car cruising in the borough between 3 pm and 7 am. After Muhammad Aksahin was found as a passenger in a speeding BMW, the Deputy High Court Judge held that he knew of the injunction and had participated in its breach.

The judge imposed 14 days’ imprisonment, suspended for three months, and ordered Aksahin to pay £5,170.50 in costs by instalments. Aksahin appealed on grounds concerning participation, knowledge, reliance on a prior section 59 warning, sanction, costs, legal representation and his command of English. The central issues were whether his passenger conduct amounted to participation, whether lack of knowledge could be raised, and whether the hearing and orders were legally sound.

Outcome

Peter Jackson LJ, with whom Cobb and Miles LJJ agreed, dismissed the appeal.

1. Procedural fairness. The appellant had declined legal advice and had made no application for an adjournment or interpreter. He could communicate effectively about the relatively simple issues, understood the trial procedure and had a fair opportunity to explain his case. There was no serious procedural irregularity and no breach of Article 6 ECHR.
2. Participation. The finding that the appellant participated in the prohibited car cruising was open to the trial judge. The mere presence of one car cruiser as a passenger in another car cruiser’s vehicle constitutes strong evidence of participation because it encourages the showing-off inherent in the activity. Being a passenger rather than the driver went to sanction, not liability.
3. Knowledge and service. The judge was entitled to find, on the evidence of the earlier warning and the prominent notices, that the appellant actually knew of the injunction. Further, applying Elliott Cuciurean v Secretary of State for Transport and HS2 Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 357 at [54–60] and Wolverhampton City Council v Persons Unknown; Birmingham City Council v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 2273 (KB) at [47], good service of an injunction in accordance with its terms prevents a defendant in committal proceedings from pleading ignorance of its existence. Actual knowledge may nevertheless affect the appropriate sanction.
4. Section 59 warning. The judge was entitled to give significant weight to the prior section 59 warning. It was directly relevant to knowledge, participation, credibility and culpability.
5. Sanction and costs. No fine had been imposed; the monetary order concerned costs. The judge properly reduced the seriousness of the appellant’s conduct to reflect his passenger status and imposed a suspended term that appropriately differentiated him from the driver. The court had a wide costs discretion and could prioritise recovery by orders imposing joint and several liability. It was not required to assess ability to pay when determining liability, although the instalment order took some account of means. The protection in section 26 of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 was unavailable in contempt proceedings: Secretary of State for Transport v Cuciurean [2022] EWCA Civ 661; [2023] 1 All ER 674 at [14–24].

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal dismissed.
2. High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division: On 16 June 2025, Richard Kimblin KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, found that the appellant had breached the injunction and imposed 14 days’ imprisonment suspended for three months, together with costs of £5,170.50 payable at £100 per month.
3. High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division: On 6 December 2024, Hill J granted an injunction prohibiting persons unknown from participating as drivers, riders or passengers in car cruising in the London Borough of Enfield between 3 pm and 7 am.