Tewkesbury Borough Council v Billy-Joe Roper & Ors

Sentencing for civil contempt requires a structured assessment of culpability and harm, followed by consideration of all relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The purposes of the contempt jurisdiction are punishment, securing future compliance and rehabilitation. Imprisonment is reserved for cases crossing the custody threshold and must be no longer than necessary to reflect the gravity of the breaches and those purposes. A genuine apology and substantial compliance with mandatory relief may justify suspending an otherwise appropriate custodial sentence.

The applicant local authority sought sanctions against Mr Billy-Joe Roper after he was found in contempt for nine breaches of an injunction concerning land at Warren Fruit Farm. The breaches included construction works, changes of use, structures, hard surfacing and the siting of caravans. A final injunction had also required the removal of specified items.

The court considered the extent of compliance, Mr Roper’s culpability, the continuing nature of the breaches, the authority’s enforcement costs, his personal circumstances, apology and mitigation. The central issue was the appropriate sanction for the established contempts and whether any custodial sentence should be suspended.

1. Sanction. The court imposed six months’ imprisonment for the nine breaches of the injunction, suspended for two years. The breaches involved deliberate and/or reckless flouting of an order known to Mr Roper and closely monitored by the applicant.
2. Applicable principles. Applying National Highways Limited v Heyatawin and others [2022] ENVLR 17, the court treated the contempt jurisdiction as serving punishment, future compliance and rehabilitation. The assessment required consideration of culpability and harm, together with matters including prejudice, pressure, deliberateness, cooperation, admission, apology, previous character and personal mitigation. Imprisonment was appropriate only because the custody threshold had been crossed, and the term had to be proportionate.
3. Culpability and aggravation. Mr Roper directed some of the works and controlled the land while permitting other occupants to carry out works, knowing or being reckless as to whether they breached the injunction. His persistent denials and rejected claim that he lacked control increased the applicant’s costs and aggravated the contempt.
4. Mitigation and suspension. His size and mobility difficulties did not prevent imprisonment being imposed, in the absence of medical evidence showing particular harm in custody. The sentence was suspended because he gave a genuine apology, there had been substantial compliance with the mandatory injunction, and there was a realistic prospect of future compliance.
5. Continuing obligations. During the two-year suspension Mr Roper remained required to comply with the injunction. He also had to remove remaining hard-core piles and timber, while the applicant no longer pressed for removal of the breezeblock staircase and surround. Further submissions were required concerning the timescale for removing three caravans from Plot 14.