MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
designed to protect, but also the harm to the administration of justice by the contemnor’s disobedience to an order of the Court. 401. As to Mr Curtin’s culpability, I have already found that, in his admitted breach of the Interim Injunction that formed Ground 2, he did not deliberately flout the Court’s order; he got partly carried away by his emotions. I accept that, when the breach was committed, he was engaged on protest activities reflecting his sincerely held beliefs. Overall, I assess his culpability as low. 402. As to harm, the breach was in respect of a protective order that was designed to prevent the sort of behaviour in which Mr Curtin engaged. However, against that, the van was only fleetingly obstructed as it attempted to leave the Wyton Site. The incident had none of the significantly aggravating factors that had led to the imposition of the Interim injunction. Overall, this was not a serious breach of the injunction, and it has no other aggravating features. I assess the harm to be low. 403. Mr Curtin accepted the breach represented by Ground 2 at the substantive hearing. By analogy with criminal proceedings, it is fair to reflect the equivalent of a guilty plea with a 10% reduction in the sentence. 404. I am quite satisfied that seriousness of Mr Curtin’s breach of the Interim Injunction is not so serious that only a custodial sentence is appropriate. I indicated as much at the conclusion of the hearing on 23 June 2023. I am satisfied that, reflecting upon the culpability and harm, it is appropriate to deal with this breach by way of a fine. In terms of mitigation, this is the first breach of the Interim Injunction and there has been no repetition since the incident almost 3 years ago. I also accept Mr Curtin’s evidence that he has always tried to abide by the terms of the Court’s order. 405. I have considered the sentencing guidelines for the less serious public order offences as a useful cross reference. On the Sentencing Council Guidelines for disorderly behaviour, in breach of s.5 Public Order Act 1986, Mr Curtin’s conduct would appear to fall into category 2B, which gives a starting point of a Band A fine, with a range from discharge to a Band B fine. A Band A fine, is between 25-75% of the defendant’s weekly wage, with a Band B fine range of 75-125% of weekly wage. I have also reminded myself of Superintendent Sissons’ evidence of penalties that have been imposed on protestors following conviction in the Magistrates’ Court. Although not a precise analogue, in my judgment it would be wrong if the penalty I imposed were to be out of all proportion to the penalties that have been imposed by the Magistrates’ Court for offences arising out of similar protest activities. 406. Of course, when sentencing for contempt, there is an important element – usually absent from most criminal sentencing – that the conduct is a breach of a court’s order. A breach of a protective order is a further aggravating factor. 407. In my judgment, the appropriate penalty for Mr Curtin’s breach of the Interim Injunction under Ground 2 would have been a fine of £100. I will reduce that to £90 to reflect his admission of liability at the substantive hearing. When the judgment is handed down, I will invite submissions as the time Mr Curtin might need to pay this sum.
170
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator