Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v Sikander Hussain
[2024] EWHC 2228 (KB)
Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v Isa Iqbal
1 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2876 (KB)
High Court
A man was caught street racing and broke a court order. The judge said he should go to jail for 28 days, but didn't have to because he hasn't done it again and is sorry. The city didn't get their court costs because they didn't do the paperwork properly.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Iqbal was found in contempt of court for breaching an interim injunction prohibiting street or car cruising.
- •The injunction was granted to four Black Country local authorities to prevent anti-social behaviour.
- •Mr. Iqbal admitted to performing a 'momentary' drift manoeuvre, a prohibited stunt, on May 28, 2023.
- •The court viewed police video evidence and considered Mr. Iqbal's admission and mitigating factors.
- •Mr. Iqbal has previous driving convictions but had a full license and insurance at the time of the breach.
Legal Principles
In contempt proceedings, the burden is on the claimant to prove the allegation beyond reasonable doubt.
Court's own statement
Objectives when imposing penalties for civil contempt are ensuring future compliance, punishment, and rehabilitation (Lovett v Wigan Borough Council).
Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631
Approach to assessing sanctions in contempt cases (Attorney General v Crosland).
Breen & Ors v Esso Petroleum Company Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1405 and Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15
Outcomes
Mr. Iqbal was sentenced to 28 days' imprisonment, suspended for 12 months.
The court considered the seriousness of the deliberate stunt, the risk of harm, and mitigating factors (including Mr. Iqbal's remorse, health issues, and lack of further breaches).
No order as to costs.
The first claimant failed to prepare a statement of costs for summary assessment, making detailed assessment disproportionate.