Birmingham City Council v Mohammad Shabbir
[2023] EWHC 2358 (KB)
Birmingham City Council v Adhnan Mohammed
20 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 568 (KB)
High Court
A man was caught street racing and broke a court order. The judge considered how bad the racing was and the man's circumstances before giving him a suspended prison sentence (he won't go to jail unless he breaks the rules again) and ordering him to pay costs.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Adhnan Mohammed was found in contempt of court for breaching an interim injunction prohibiting street cruising in Birmingham.
- •The injunction, initially granted in December 2022, was amended several times.
- •Mohammed was arrested on January 28, 2024, for participating in a street cruise involving racing at speeds around 50 mph in 30-40 mph zones.
- •He admitted to breaching the injunction but disputed the exact speed and weaving in and out of traffic.
- •Mohammed spent approximately two days in custody before his first court appearance.
- •He admitted to contempt after receiving legal advice.
Legal Principles
In civil contempt proceedings, the burden of proof is on the claimant to establish the contempt beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Law
Objectives of sentencing for civil contempt are to ensure further compliance with the order, punishment, and rehabilitation.
Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631
Sentencing for contempt should consider the sentencing matrix in Annex 1 to the Civil Justice Council’s July 2020 report (used by analogy in cases outside the 2014 Act involving anti-social behaviour).
Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15; Breen v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1405; Birmingham City Council v Lloyd [2023] EWCA Civ 1355
Costs protection afforded to those in receipt of civil legal aid does not apply to those in receipt of criminal legal aid defending contempt proceedings.
Secretary of State for Transport v Cuciurean [2022] EWCA Civ 661
Outcomes
Mohammed was sentenced to 22 days' imprisonment (33 days less one-third for his admission of guilt), suspended for 12 months.
The judge considered the culpability (category B – deliberate breach), harm (category 2 – significant risk of harm despite limited actual harm), aggravating and mitigating circumstances (first offense, remorse, stable home life, employment, financial constraints). A custodial sentence was deemed necessary despite mitigation, but suspension was appropriate given his otherwise good character and remorse.
Mohammed was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs of £2,234 at a rate of £50 per month, starting April 20, 2024.
The claimant was successful in establishing the contempt, and no reason to depart from the general rule of the unsuccessful party paying costs.