which also emphasised that “the purpose of imposing a sanction for contempt is to punish the breach, ensure compliance with the court orders and rehabilitate the person in contempt”.
2.2 Particular Considerations in Protestor Cases
8. In accordance with general principles, any sanction for civil contempt must be just and proportionate. It must not be excessive. But in civil contempt cases, the purposes of sanctions are rather different from those in criminal cases. Whilst they include punishment and rehabilitation, an important aspect of the harm is the breach of the court's order: see [17] of Cuciurean . An important objective of the sanction is to ensure future compliance with the order in question: see Willoughby v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 699 at [20]. 9. When dealing with protestors for contempt, the courts have talked about the “moral difference” between “ordinary law-breakers” and protestors which, in many circumstances, can justify a more benign sentencing regime: see [98] of Cuadrilla and R v Roberts [2018] EWCA Crim 2739; [2019] 1 WLR 2577 at [34]. This is to encourage a dialogue with the defendant so that he or she appreciates that, in a democratic society, it is the duty of responsible citizens to obey the law and respect the right of others, even where the law or other people's activities are contrary to the protestor's own moral conviction: see [98] of Cuadrilla .
10. The specific issue of dialogue was addressed by Dame Victoria Sharp, President of the King's Bench Division, in Heyatawin . She said at [53]:
“53. In some contempt cases, there may be scope for the court to temper the sanction imposed because there is a realistic prospect that this will deter further law-breaking or, to put it another way, encourage contemnors to engage in the dialogue described in Cuadrilla with a view to mending their ways or purging their contempt. However, it is always necessary to consider whether there is such a prospect on the facts of the case. In some cases, there will be. In some cases, not. Moreover, it is important to add, that 'there is no principle which justifies treating the conscientious motives of the protestor as a licence to flout court orders with impunity': Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15, at [47].”
11. In this way, the importance of complying with court orders, no matter the sincerity of the protestor's views, still remains paramount: as the Supreme Court said in Crosland at [47]:
7
21
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online