Breen & Ors. v Esso Petroleum Company Limited

Breen & Ors. v Esso Petroleum Company Limited

The custodial sentence of 112 days was not wrong in principle or unreasonable, as the judge properly considered all aggravating and mitigating factors and the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness and duration of the contempt. However, the imposition of a fine was wrong in principle because the custody threshold had been passed and the appellant lacked means; thus, the fine was quashed.

Parties
Appellant: Breen & others; Respondent: Esso Petroleum Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Contempt of Court Sanctions
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; custodial sentence upheld, fine quashed
Legal Topics
Sanctions for Contempt, Suspension of Sentence, Mitigating and Aggravating Factors, Protestor Cases, Imposition of Fines
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Sanctions for Contempt Suspension of Sentence Mitigating and Aggravating Factors Protestor Cases Imposition of Fines

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Breen & others

Appellant

Esso Petroleum Company Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Contempt of Court Sanctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the custodial sentence of 112 days for contempt was wrong in principle or unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether the sentence should have been suspended
  3. 3 Whether the imposition of a £1,500 fine in addition to imprisonment was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The custodial sentence of 112 days was not wrong in principle or unreasonable, as the judge properly considered all aggravating and mitigating factors and the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness and duration of the contempt. However, the imposition of a fine was wrong in principle because the custody threshold had been passed and the appellant lacked means; thus, the fine was quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; custodial sentence upheld, fine quashed

Orders

  • Custodial sentence of 112 days immediate imprisonment upheld
  • Fine of £1,500 quashed