Birmingham City Council v Connor Hill & Ors

Birmingham City Council v Connor Hill & Ors

The defendants admitted to deliberate breaches of the interim injunction by participating in street cruising at excessive speeds, creating a high risk of harm. The breaches warranted custodial sentences, but mitigation and admissions justified suspension of the sentences. Costs were awarded to the claimant, apportioned among the defendants.

Parties
Claimant: Birmingham City Council; Defendant: Connor Hill; Defendant: Asim Rahman; Defendant: Aman Kayani
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court (civil) / Sentencing After Admissions of Breach of Interim Injunction
Outcome
Defendants found in contempt; custodial sentences imposed and suspended; costs awarded to claimant.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Breach of Injunction, Street Cruising, Sentencing for Contempt, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Public Order Injunctions Contempt of Court Breach of Injunction Street Cruising Sentencing for Contempt Costs Orders

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Birmingham City Council

Claimant

Connor Hill

Defendant

Asim Rahman

Defendant

Aman Kayani

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court (civil) / Sentencing After Admissions of Breach of Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants breached the terms of the interim injunction against street cruising
  2. 2 Appropriate sentence for contempt of court for breach of injunction
  3. 3 Appropriate costs order following contempt finding

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants admitted to deliberate breaches of the interim injunction by participating in street cruising at excessive speeds, creating a high risk of harm. The breaches warranted custodial sentences, but mitigation and admissions justified suspension of the sentences. Costs were awarded to the claimant, apportioned among the defendants.

Court Disposition

Defendants found in contempt; custodial sentences imposed and suspended; costs awarded to claimant.

Orders

  • Each defendant sentenced to 23 days’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months on condition of compliance with the injunction.
  • Each defendant to pay £830 in costs to the claimant by instalments of £100 per month, first payment due in 21 days.