Kirk v Spratley & Anor

Committal orders must state clearly when a suspended term takes effect and what conduct will trigger imprisonment. Where compliance has been achieved but a later breach is alleged, the appropriate course will ordinarily be a fresh application to commit, rather than automatic imprisonment under an earlier order. An appellate court may extend time and grant permission where delay is reasonably explained and the form of the committal order raises serious concern. Pending an urgent appeal, the committal order may be suspended, but the underlying obligation remains in force.

The appeal arose from an order made by His Honour Judge Hull QC in the Epsom County Court on 9 April 2001, committing Margaret Spratley and Donna Bianca to prison in connection with an order limiting the number of dogs kept at the premises.

The defendants sought an extension of time and permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal was concerned that the order did not clearly state the duration of the suspension after compliance and appeared to provide for automatic committal if the number of dogs later exceeded six. It also noted a possible issue concerning an attempted extension of an earlier order after that order had expired. The immediate issue was whether the committal order should remain operative pending an urgent appeal.

Lord Justice Waller gave the judgment, with which Lady Justice Hale agreed.

1. The court granted an extension of time and permission to appeal. There was a reasonable excuse for the delay, but the more important consideration was the court’s concern about the form of the committal order.
2. The order was unsatisfactory because it did not clearly identify the period for which imprisonment was suspended after the number of dogs had been reduced to six or fewer. Its second paragraph appeared to provide for automatic committal if, after 10 May, the number increased above six.
3. The more appropriate procedure would ordinarily be a further application to commit if there were a later increase in the number of dogs, rather than automatic imprisonment under the existing order.
4. The court noted, without deciding, a possible issue whether the original order made by Judge Morgan, which had expired on 27 January 2001, could validly be extended after its expiry.
5. Pending the appeal, the committal order was suspended. The underlying obligation to keep the number of dogs below six remained in force, and the defendants were not released from compliance. The appeal was directed to be listed urgently and costs were reserved.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Extension of time and permission to appeal granted. The committal order made by His Honour Judge Hull QC on 9 April 2001 was suspended pending the appeal, which was directed to be listed urgently. Costs reserved.
• Epsom County Court: His Honour Judge Hull QC made the committal order on 9 April 2001.