Passenger Fails Appeal Over Car-Cruising Injunction Breach

Inner Temple Library Current Awareness

Filed March 19th, 2026

Detected March 20th, 2026

Summary

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by a passenger who was found to have breached a car-cruising injunction obtained by the London Borough of Enfield. The appellant argued he was unaware of the injunction and did not participate in the prohibited activity, but the court upheld the High Court's finding that he knew of the order and was a participant.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Court of Appeal has upheld a High Court decision finding a passenger in breach of a car-cruising injunction. The injunction, obtained by the London Borough of Enfield, prohibited persons unknown from participating in street cruising activities. The appellant was found to be a passenger in a vehicle racing in an area subject to the injunction, despite his claims of ignorance and asking the driver to stop. The court found sufficient evidence to prove the appellant's knowledge of the injunction and his participation as a passenger.

This ruling reinforces the enforceability of car-cruising injunctions and the potential consequences for individuals found to be in breach, even as passengers. Regulated entities, particularly local authorities and law enforcement, should note the court's willingness to uphold such injunctions and the standard of proof applied. Individuals involved in or associated with such activities should be aware that knowledge of an injunction can be inferred, and participation as a passenger can lead to penalties, including imprisonment, as demonstrated by the driver's sentence.

What to do next

Review existing injunctions and enforcement procedures for car-cruising activities.
Ensure clear signage and public notification methods for injunctions are maintained.
Assess internal legal guidance on proving knowledge and participation in injunction breaches.

Penalties

The driver was sentenced to 25 days imprisonment. The appellant's sentence is not detailed in this excerpt.

Source document (simplified)

Passenger fails in appeal over finding he had breached car-cruising injunction

Details

19.Mar.2026

The Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal from a passenger over a finding that he had participated in a breach of a car-cruising injunction obtained by the London Borough of Enfield.

The background to the case of Aksahin v London Borough of Enfield [2026] EWCA Civ 231 was that Enfield Council had obtained an injunction in December 2024 that prohibited persons unknown from participating as a driver, rider or passenger in street cruising activities between the hours of 3 pm and 7 am.

Signs about the injunction were placed in numerous locations where car-cruising activities had been prevalent, and by publication on social media and in specialist car publications. One of the locations where the signs were placed was Enfield Retail Park.

In May 2025 the appellant was personally served with a warning under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002, which empowers the police to seize vehicles where they are used in a manner that causes alarm, distress or annoyance.

This was after he had been found by the police to be driving his own car in an anti-social manner and doing donuts at the retail park.

Five days later the appellant was a passenger in a BMW car that was racing in an area of Enfield called Clay Hill. It was pulled over by the police and both the driver and the appellant/passenger were arrested for breach of the injunction.

At a hearing in the High Court in June 2025, the appellant said he did not know about the injunction and that, as he had asked the driver to stop, he had not participated in the prohibited activity.

Richard Kimblin KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court judge, said he was sure to the criminal standard that the appellant knew of the order and that he had participated as a passenger.

Having given the two men the opportunity to mitigate, the judge sentenced the driver to imprisonment for 25 days and the appellant for 14 days, in each case suspended for three months on condition that they complied with the injunction.

Each of them was ordered to pay the costs of the council in the sum of £5,170.50, payable at the rate of £100 per month.

The first ground of appeal put forward by the appellant was that he had been discouraging the driver, not inciting or assisting them.

Passive presence was not enough to establish a breach, and no evidence was raised at trial to suggest otherwise, he claimed.

Dealing with ground 1, Lord Justice Peter Jackson said: “This ground of appeal does not impress. At trial, the appellant offered no explanation for why he was being driven around Enfield after midnight in someone else's car so soon after being warned for car cruising in that very area.

“The mere presence of one car cruiser as a passenger in another car cruiser's car will constitute strong evidence of participation because, by its nature, it encourages the type of showing off that lies at the heart of car cruising.

“In this case, the judge, who had the advantage of hearing the appellant's evidence and considering all the circumstances, was clearly entitled to conclude that he was participating in a breach of the injunction.”

The Court of Appeal judge also rejected the appellant’s claim that he had no knowledge of the injunction. He upheld the High Court judge’s finding that the appellant knew that there was a prohibition on car cruising in Enfield and he knew that by reason of the service of the warning on him five days earlier.

Lord Justice Peter Jackson also rejected a claim that Richard Kimblin KC had given improper weight to the section 59 notice.

“The judge did attach significant weight to the notice, in relation to knowledge, participation and sanction. He was right to do so, as it was directly relevant to the issues he had to decide and it shone a clear light on the appellant's lack of credibility on the first two issues and his culpability on the third.”

The appellant’s other grounds of appeal relating to misapplication of the legal test for breach, a disproportionate sanction, and procedural unfairness due to a lack of legal representation and a language barrier were all rejected as well.

Lord Justice Cobb and Lord Justice Miles agreed.