Birmingham City Council v Daniel Gordon & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1525 (KB)
Birmingham City Council v Raaghib Afsar & Anor
3 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1942 (KB)
High Court
Two men were caught street racing in Birmingham and broke a court order against it. They admitted to doing it and got 28-day suspended jail sentences. They also have to pay court costs.
Key Facts
- •Mr Raaghib Afsar and Mr Umar Mahmood admitted contempt of court for breaching a final injunction against street cruising in Birmingham.
- •The injunction, granted by Knowles J on 27 February 2024, prohibited participation in street cruises within Birmingham.
- •The defendants were arrested on 19 May 2024 for driving at high speeds and racing each other.
- •Both defendants admitted to driving at speeds of 70-80 mph in a 40 mph zone, accepting this constituted a breach of the injunction.
- •The court considered the defendants' culpability, the harm caused, and mitigating circumstances before sentencing.
Legal Principles
The court applies the criminal standard of proof in contempt proceedings.
None explicitly stated, implied in the judgment
Sentencing for contempt of court should aim to ensure future compliance, punishment, and rehabilitation.
None explicitly stated, from the judge's sentencing approach
Guidance from *Lovett v Wigan Borough Council* [2022] EWCA Civ 1631 and *Birmingham City Council v Lloyd* [2023] EWCA Civ 1355 was applied in determining sentence.
*Lovett v Wigan Borough Council* [2022] EWCA Civ 1631, *Birmingham City Council v Lloyd* [2023] EWCA Civ 1355
The unsuccessful party in civil proceedings usually pays the costs of the successful party (CPR 44.2(2)).
CPR 44.2(2)
Outcomes
Both defendants were found in contempt of court.
Their actions constituted a breach of the injunction, admitted by the defendants.
Each defendant received a suspended sentence of 28 days' imprisonment (reduced from 42 days due to early admission).
The seriousness of the breach warranted a custodial sentence; mitigating factors, such as age, good character and remorse, resulted in suspension.
Each defendant was ordered to pay £693 in costs, payable in installments.
The claimant's application for costs was unopposed and deemed proportionate.