Champken v Champken

In an appeal from contempt findings, the Court of Appeal applies the ordinary test of whether the decision below was wrong. In the quasi-criminal setting of committal proceedings, fresh evidence may make a decision wrong where it demonstrates that the findings rested on tainted evidence. A later false allegation by a complainant does not automatically invalidate earlier findings. The effect depends on the particular circumstances, including the similarity between the later allegation and the earlier allegations and the timing of the later lie. Where those features make the decision unsafe, the committal order may be quashed.

The case arose from contempt proceedings concerning injunctions restraining one spouse from molesting or interfering with the other. An order was made without notice on 19 April 2004. Judge Mott subsequently found breaches and imposed a suspended four-month prison sentence. On 20 May 2004, Judge Coles found nine of fourteen alleged incidents proved and imposed a suspended six-month committal order.

The appeal challenged the credibility findings and relied on fresh evidence. The day after Judge Coles’s decision, the complainant made an allegation of assault, then admitted that it was false. The central issue was whether this evidence rendered Judge Coles’s decision unsafe and therefore wrong on appeal, and what consequence followed for Judge Mott’s order.

Laws LJ delivered the judgment, with Wall LJ agreeing.

1. Appellate test. The court confirmed that the test on an appeal from a committal decision was whether the decision below was wrong under CPR 52.11(3). Consistently with Abouchitaa v El-Yamlahi [2001] EWCA Civ 1407, the Court of Appeal would not interfere with a factual finding in contempt proceedings unless satisfied that it was wrong. In the quasi-criminal context of committal proceedings, however, a decision shown to be unsafe because it rested on tainted evidence could readily be categorised as wrong.
2. Earlier grounds. The judge had considered the alleged inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence and was entitled to prefer her account. The spelling evidence concerning incidents 9 to 12 was striking, and the judge’s reasoning on that point involved a non sequitur, but it did not, by itself, undermine the whole case. Complaints concerning a favourable finding on incident 4 and the absence of specific findings on incidents 13 and 14 provided no sufficient basis for reversal.
3. Fresh evidence. The later allegation was extremely similar to allegations accepted by Judge Coles and was made only one day after his decision. Although a later lie by a complainant will not necessarily undermine an earlier finding, these unusual features made the decision unsafe. The appeal against Judge Coles’s order was therefore allowed and that order was quashed.
4. Judge Mott’s order. After brief submissions, the court concluded that the same considerations required Judge Mott’s order also to be quashed. No additional reasoning was necessary.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeals allowed. The court held that Judge Coles’s decision was unsafe because of fresh evidence and quashed both committal orders.
2. Worcester County Court: Judge Mott imposed a suspended four-month prison sentence for breaches found on 21 April 2004. Judge Coles imposed a suspended six-month committal order on 20 May 2004 after finding nine alleged incidents proved.