North Warwickshire Borough Council v Diane Hekt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Kelly |
| Judgment Date | 20 September 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 2567 (KB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2022-BHM-001236 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
[2022] EWHC 2567 (KB)
HER HONOUR JUDGE Emma Kelly
(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
Case No: QB-2022-BHM-001236
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT REGISTRY
Sitting at:
Birmingham Crown Court
1 Newton Street
Birmingham
B4 7NR
Mr Manning and Ms Crocombe (instructed by the Borough Legal Department) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
MS D HEKT appeared in person
MR R JARMAN appeared in person
JUDGE Ruth Jarman and Diane Hekt, you each appear before the court today in respect of an admitted breach of the injunction granted by Sweeting J on 14 April 2022, as varied by order dated 6 May 2022.
You were each informed at the hearing last week and again today that you are entitled to legal advice and representation and reasonable time to prepare your case. Ms Jarman you have maintained that you do not want any legal representation. Ms Hekt, you told the court earlier today that you wanted Birds solicitors to represent you. Your case was put back for enquiries to be made with the firm of solicitors. They have stated that they cannot attend court today. You have been given the opportunity for your case to be adjourned but have indicated that you nonetheless want to proceed in person today.
On 15 September 2022 the claimant provided you each with written particulars of the alleged contempt. You have each informed the court today that you admit that you were in breach of the injunction on 14 September 2022 as alleged. Bearing in mind that the claimant's evidence was served after the first hearing but before today, I take your admissions as being ones made at the earliest reasonable opportunity.
On an application for committal for contempt, the court has to be satisfied that the claimant has proved its case to the criminal standard, namely beyond reasonable doubt. In light of the admissions that you have made to the court and having read the claimant's evidence, I am so satisfied. The court has to determine the appropriate penalty for the contempt.
Background
On 14 April 2022, Sweeting J granted a without notice interim injunction against various named defendants and persons unknown. You were not named defendants. Persons unknown were defined as those who were:
“… organising, participating in or encouraging others to participate in protests against the production and/or use of fossil fuels, in the locality of the site known as Kingsbury oil terminal, Tamworth B78 2HA.”
A power of arrest was attached to the injunction.
The terms of the injunction were varied at an on-notice the hearing on 5 May 2022 and drawn into an order dated 6 May 2022. The relevant paragraphs of the order of 6 May 2022 are as follows:
“(1) The defendants shall not (whether by themselves or by instructing, encouraging or allowing another person):
(a) organise or participate in (whether by themselves or with any other person), or encourage, invite or arrange for any other person to participate in any protest against the production or use of fossil fuels at Kingsbury Oil Terminal (“the Terminal”), taking place within the areas of the boundaries which are edged red on the map attached to this order at schedule 1.
(b) In connection with any such protest anywhere in the locality of the terminal perform any of the following acts:”
There then follows 11 sub-paragraphs defining prohibited activities. Those relevant to the matter before the court today are:
“(iii) obstructing of any entrance to the terminal; …
(xi) instructing, assisting or encouraging any other person to do any act prohibited by paragraphs (b)(i) – (x) of this order.”
The map referred to in paragraph 1(a) of the injunction is prepared at a scale of 1:5000 and shows a red line largely following the perimeter of the oil terminal. A private access road off the public highway falls within the red line.
The injunction was ordered to continue until the hearing of the claim unless varied or discharged by further order of the court. The final hearing of the claim has not yet occurred, and the order of 6 May 2022 has not to date been further varied or discharged.
By paragraph 5 of the injunction, Sweeting J permitted the claimant to serve the order and power of arrest by alternative means specified in schedule 2. The alternative service included the placing of the order in prominent locations along the boundary and outside the terminal, the junctions to the road leading into the zone and on various social media platforms that the claimant utilised.
I am satisfied on the evidence before me that the claimant has proved the necessary service by alternative means. The claimant took a variety of steps, not all of them immediately after the hearing in May but had nonetheless completed service before the date of your activity on 14 September 2022. The claimant posted details of the amended order on its website with links to social media on 10 May 2022 but did not immediately comply with the other requirements as to alternative service. However, on 23 August 2022 the claimant posted details on its Twitter and Facebook accounts. On 24 August 2022, 26 August 2022 and 2 September completed steps to ensure that copies of the order and power of arrest were displayed in multiple locations at, around and in the vicinity of the terminal.
On 14 September 2022 you were two of just over 50 individuals who gathered at Kingsbury Oil Terminal from approximately 11.30am to protest against the production and use of fossil fuels. You positioned yourselves on a private access road within the red boundary demarcated on the map attached to the injunction. It is accepted by the claimant that it was a purely peaceful protest but it was nonetheless one which obstructed the road. The sheer volume of protestors involved meant that when you sat down across the road you blocked vehicular access into and out of the terminal. You were accompanied by various “Just Stop Oil” banners, with many of you wearing hi-vis jackets marked with the Just Stop Oil logo.
Initially you allowed some private vehicles but not oil tankers to enter and exit the terminal but after a period of time you stopped all vehicular traffic. There is evidence that one worker asked one of your number for permission to leave in their vehicle to attend an urgent medical appointment at 2.30 pm but they were not allowed vehicular egress. The police attended and asked you to move, warning that you would be arrested if you chose not to comply. You refused to move and from 3.50 pm onwards the police began the very considerable task of arresting all 51 of you.
This court has to determine the appropriate penalty for your admitted breaches of paragraphs 1(a), 1(b)(iii) and 1(b)(xi) of the injunction. In my judgment, the fact that three separate limbs of the injunction were breached makes no difference to the appropriate penalty as they all arise from the same facts, namely your involvement in the protest which blocked the access road to the terminal.
The approach to determining the appropriate penalty
The claimant has prepared a sentencing note for today's hearing. I largely agree with the approach advocated in that document.
In determining the appropriate penalty for a civil contempt of court, I bear in mind the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in Willoughby v Solihull MBC [2013] EWCA Civ 699. There are three objectives to consider when imposing a penalty. Pitchford LJ at para 20 held:
“the first is punishment for breach of an order of the court; the second is to secure future compliance with the court's order if possible; the third is rehabilitation, which is a natural companion to the second objective.”
The Sentencing Council do not produce guidelines in respect...
To continue reading
Request your trial