Scott & Anor v Easthorpe & Anor

An assault on a court officer in the execution of duty is treated as contempt and engages the court’s responsibility to protect its officers and safeguard the administration of justice. Custody will almost always be appropriate, even for a relatively minor assault, but the sentence must remain proportionate. The statutory maximum was excessive where a reckless stone-throwing caused no injury or physical contact, and mitigation included remorse, limited fear and good character. A sentence of 21 days was sufficient.

Mr Easthope appealed against an order of the Milton Keynes County Court dated 28 August 2003, which committed him to prison for three months for assaulting a court bailiff in the execution of her duty. The proceedings were brought under CCR 34 r.1 for an alleged offence under section 14 of the County Courts Act 1984. The assault consisted of throwing a stone at the bailiff’s car as she left after attempting to serve court papers. The central issue was whether the maximum custodial sentence was excessive given the absence of personal injury or physical contact and the mitigating circumstances.

The appeal was allowed unanimously. The sentence of three months’ imprisonment was quashed and a sentence of 21 days substituted, enabling immediate release. There was no order as to costs.

1. Nature of proceedings and jurisdiction. Proceedings under section 14 of the County Courts Act 1984 for assaulting a court officer are in the nature of contempt proceedings. Accordingly, an appeal lay as of right under section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. The court relied on Southam v Smout [1964] 1 QB 308 for the characterisation of the proceedings.
2. Sentencing principle. The judge was right to treat the assault seriously. Court officers require protection because they ordinarily perform their duties without weapons or accompaniment, and the administration of justice must be safeguarded. A custodial sentence will almost always be appropriate to mark the court’s disapproval, even where the assault is relatively trivial.
3. Proportionality and mitigation. The sentence nevertheless had to reflect the actual seriousness of the conduct and the mitigating features. The judge had recognised that the act was reckless rather than a deliberate attempt to injure, that there was no personal injury, that the fear was brief, and that the appellant had expressed regret and had no previous convictions. Three months was excessive for an assault involving no injury or physical contact, although the act was dangerous and intended to discourage service of the papers. Twenty-one days was sufficient.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 10 September 2003, allowed the appeal, quashed the three-month sentence and substituted 21 days’ imprisonment.
• Milton Keynes County Court: On 28 August 2003, committed the appellant to prison for three months for assaulting a court bailiff in the execution of her duty.