Birmingham City Council v Mohammed Daanyaal & Anor
[2024] EWHC 569 (KB)
Birmingham City Council v Connor Hill & Ors
30 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 271 (KB)
High Court
Three people were caught street racing and broke a court order against it. They admitted guilt, and the judge gave them suspended jail sentences (meaning they won't go to jail if they don't break the law again) and made them pay court costs.
Key Facts
- •Connor Hill, Asim Rahman, and Aman Kayani were found in contempt of court for breaching an interim injunction prohibiting street cruising in Birmingham.
- •The injunction, initially granted in December 2022, had been amended several times.
- •The defendants admitted to breaching the injunction by engaging in speeding and racing activities.
- •The defendants were arrested and subsequently admitted their breaches.
- •The court considered the sentencing guidelines outlined in Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631 and Birmingham City Council v Lloyd [2023] EWCA Civ 1355.
Legal Principles
In contempt proceedings, even though civil, the burden of proof rests on the claimant to establish the contempt to the criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt.
This judgment
Objectives when imposing penalties for civil contempt are to ensure future compliance with the order, punishment, and rehabilitation (Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631).
Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631
Sentencing for contempt should consider the sentencing matrix in Annex 1 of the Civil Justice Council’s July 2020 report (relevant to antisocial behavior, even outside the 2014 Act, as endorsed in Birmingham City Council v Lloyd [2023] EWCA Civ 1355).
Lovett v Wigan Borough Council and Birmingham City Council v Lloyd [2023] EWCA Civ 1355
Costs protection under section 26 of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 does not apply to those using criminal legal aid to defend contempt proceedings (Secretary of State for Transport v Cuciurean [2022] EWCA Civ 661).
Secretary of State for Transport v Cuciurean [2022] EWCA Civ 661
Outcomes
Each defendant was sentenced to 23 days’ imprisonment (35 days less one-third for their admissions), suspended for 12 months.
The court found the breaches serious, necessitating custodial sentences, but considered mitigating factors like good character and remorse. Suspension was deemed appropriate to encourage future compliance.
Each defendant was ordered to pay £830 in costs (£255 issue fee + £575 contribution to counsel’s fees) in monthly installments of £100.
The claimant was the successful party, and the court considered the defendants' income when setting the payment plan.