Kaur v Singh

Admission of contempt and an apology made on an application to purge contempt do not, of themselves, require a reduction in the sentence originally imposed. A discount ordinarily associated with mitigation at the sentencing stage cannot be claimed retrospectively where the application concerns purging contempt rather than an appeal against sentence. The court considering the original sentence can only take account of mitigation placed before it.

The appellant had repeatedly breached injunctions protecting the respondent and had received several terms of imprisonment for contempt. On 31 May 2001, in his absence, the county court activated a suspended sentence and imposed a further sentence, resulting in two years’ imprisonment, the statutory maximum identified by the court.

He subsequently applied to purge his contempt. He admitted the breaches, apologised and relied on his circumstances and rehabilitation in prison. The county court refused the application. The central issue was whether the later admission and apology required a reduction of the sentence imposed earlier.

1. Appeal dismissed. The refusal to reduce the sentence on the application to purge contempt was upheld.
2. The application was not an appeal against the sentence imposed on 31 May 2001. The original sentence had not been appealed, and there had been no mitigation before the judge because the appellant was absent, had not admitted the contempt and had not apologised.
3. An admission of breaches and an apology made when applying to purge contempt do not, without more, require a discount of the kind ordinarily considered at the original sentencing stage. The court must distinguish the function of an application to purge from an appeal against sentence.
4. Re R (A Minor) [1994] 2 FLR 185 did not govern the application. That authority might have been relevant to an appeal against the original sentence, but it was not in point where the issue was purging contempt.
5. The court noted that the two-year sentence was the maximum available under section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, referring also to Villiers v Villiers [1994] 1 FLR 647. Lord Justice Laws agreed entirely with Lord Justice Dyson’s judgment.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the refusal by His Honour Judge Serota QC at Milton Keynes County Court on 6 July 2001 of the application to purge contempt. Appeal dismissed.