Birmingham City Council v Adhnan Mohammed
[2024] EWHC 568 (KB)
Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v Sikander Hussain
23 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 2228 (KB)
High Court
A man was caught street racing and breaking a court order. The judge sent him to jail for 37 days but let him go home if he behaves. He also has to pay a fine in installments.
Key Facts
- •Sikander Hussain admitted contempt of court for breaching a court injunction on 11 May 2024.
- •The injunction, granted on 27 February 2024, prohibited street racing and dangerous driving in the Black Country.
- •Hussain was racing at approximately 80 mph, straddling lanes, and undertaking on Kenrick Way, West Bromwich.
- •Hussain had received prior warnings from police regarding similar behaviour.
- •Hussain had a recent conviction for drink driving and was disqualified from driving at the time of the offence.
- •Hussain initially gave a false name and date of birth to the police.
- •Hussain has a history of poor mental health and is in receipt of Personal Independence Payments.
Legal Principles
The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is beyond reasonable doubt.
This case
Sentencing for contempt of court should follow the guidance in *Lovett v Wigan Borough Council* [2022] EWCA Civ 1631 and *Birmingham City Council v Lloyd* [2023] EWCA Civ 1355.
[2022] EWCA Civ 1631, [2023] EWCA Civ 1355
In determining costs, the general rule is that the successful party is entitled to costs, unless there is a reason to depart from the rule.
This case
Outcomes
Hussain was sentenced to 37 days' imprisonment, suspended for 12 months.
The court considered the seriousness of the breach, aggravating factors (prior warnings, recent drink-driving conviction, lack of initial cooperation), and mitigating factors (mental health issues, family support). The judge decided that only a custodial sentence was sufficient but suspended it given the mitigating circumstances and the defendant's early cooperation.
Hussain was ordered to pay costs of £1700.30 in monthly installments of £100.
The court followed the general rule on costs, considering the defendant's financial situation.