National Highways Limited v Aaron Gunning & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1506 (KB)
National Highways Limited v Callum Goodie & Anor
4 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1505 (KB)
High Court
Two people were accused of breaking a court order by protesting on a motorway. They said they didn't know about the order. The judge believed them, even though one of them had been served with a similar order before, so they weren't punished.
Key Facts
- •National Highways Limited (NHL) sought to commit Callum Goode (D12) and Tez Burns (D61) for contempt of court.
- •Goode and Burns were alleged to have breached a precautionary injunction (Chamberlain Order) by trespassing on M25 gantries.
- •Goode and Burns glued themselves to the Royal Courts of Justice gates, resulting in an adjournment.
- •The hearing resumed, but Burns did not attend.
- •Goode and Burns were both acquitted of “locking on” offences under s.1 Public Order Act 2023.
- •The court considered whether to proceed in Burns' absence and/or issue a bench warrant.
- •The court considered the evidence regarding Goode and Burns' knowledge of the injunction.
- •Goode and Burns both claimed they had no knowledge of the Chamberlain Order.
Legal Principles
The court has discretion to continue contempt proceedings in a defendant's absence, but this power should be exercised cautiously.
Her Majesty’s Attorney General v. Branch [2021] EWHC 1735 (Admin)
A person is guilty of contempt of court if they (i) received notice of the order; (ii) intended to do the prohibited act; and (iii) had knowledge of facts making the act a breach.
NHL v. Kirin & ors [2023] EWHC 3000 (KB)
Notice of the injunction is distinct from knowledge of it. Actual knowledge of the injunction goes to sanction, not breach. The defendant bears the burden of proving absence of knowledge on the civil standard.
NHL v. Kirin & ors [2023] EWHC 3000 (KB)
Personal service of an order, even if ignored by the recipient (e.g., by immediately binning it), does not allow avoidance of consequences.
Secretary of State for Transport v. Cucuirean [2020] EWHC 2614 (Ch)
Outcomes
The court proceeded with the case against both defendants in Burns' absence; no bench warrant was issued.
Burns had been present at a previous hearing, the order was served, no reason was given for absence, and the evidence was largely complete. The court considered the prejudice to NHL and the court.
Goode and Burns were found liable for contempt of court.
They were served with the injunction, intended to act in breach, and had knowledge of the facts constituting a breach.
Goode was found to have lacked knowledge of the Chamberlain Order.
The court accepted Goode's testimony that they had no knowledge of the injunction, considering their evidence honest and their explanation for lack of recall credible.
Burns was found to have lacked knowledge of the Chamberlain Order.
While served with the Bennathan Order, the court cautiously avoided making findings based on that order alone. The court accepted Burns’ testimony of lack of knowledge of the Chamberlain Order, considering it honest despite other conduct.
No penalty was imposed on either Goode or Burns.
Lack of knowledge of the Chamberlain Order precluded a finding of contempt, despite technical breaches.