and still around two minutes away from him when he was removed from the track and that he was on the track for around 24 seconds. They also agree that measures were in place to stop the race in the event of disruption to the race track and that the race could have been stopped in time had the system I have already described been operated as it should have done. 26. Fourthly, I turn to mitigation. There is significant mitigation in the present case: first, the fact that the defendant has made an early admission of the relevant contempt. In accordance with the guidance from the Supreme Court in Crossland , there should be a reduction for that admission consistently with the approach set out in the applicable Sentencing Council guidelines, i.e. one third of any penalty which would otherwise be imposed. A second element of mitigation is the defendant's expression of remorse. In the present case, it appears to me that this goes beyond merely saying he is sorry. He has admitted the contempt at an early stage. He has made a guilty plea to the analogous criminal proceedings. He has apologised in his witness statement. He has sought to resolve the proceedings to the satisfaction of the claimant and has offered undertakings to the claimant and the court. There is no evidence of the defendant engaging in similar disruptive protests since 3 June 2023.
27. A further element of mitigation is the fact that the defendant has already spent 36 days in custody following his arrest, which arose from the same conduct as constitutes the relevant contempt, albeit in relation to the criminal proceedings.
28. Another mitigating factor is that the defendant has already received a custodial sentence in relation to the criminal proceedings arising from that same conduct. Counsel for the defendant accepted that criminal sentences serve different interests to sanction for contempt of court. The defendant, moreover, accepts that the court is entitled to punish the contempt, notwithstanding that there has been a separate criminal sentence. Nonetheless, the defendant submits that the sentence imposed by the criminal proceedings is relevant in mitigation of sanction. I accept the broad submission that the court should have regard to the totality of the legal sanctions imposed on the defendant for the same events and take it into account in reaching an overall sentence. 29. I also accept the submission of counsel for the defendant that this is an appropriate case for the application of the principles found in the protest cases, based on the following factors. First, I accept the defendant's evidence that he has reflected genuinely on his conduct during the time he has already spent in custody. He has explained that that period of custody has afforded him the chance to reflect on his actions and that he has reassessed his approach to orders of the court. I also accept in this regard that the fact that the defendant has not engaged in conduct in breach of the order or any disruptive protest since the date of the contempt reflects on the genuineness of defendant's reflections upon the seriousness of the conduct. I have also had regard to the fact that the defendant's conduct, albeit disruptive, is within the scope of the protection given by Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR.
9
23
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online