Price v Dobson

A finding of contempt requires more than non-compliance with an order where the alleged contemnor has acted on legal advice in relation to a genuinely uncertain question of law. The court must be satisfied that the order was deliberately and intentionally flouted. Where responsibility for storage charges connected with property seized and retained by the police remains legally unresolved, a reasonable and bona fide dispute about that responsibility will not ordinarily justify a finding of contempt.

The Chief Constable of Cleveland Police appealed against a District Judge’s finding that he was in contempt of court and against the associated costs order. The proceedings arose after a vehicle seized as suspected stolen property was ordered to be delivered to Michael Dobson under section 1 of the Police (Property) Act 1897. A dispute subsequently arose over whether the police were required to pay storage charges so that the vehicle could be released. The central issue before the Divisional Court was whether the Chief Constable’s conduct justified contempt proceedings.

1. The appeal was allowed and the finding of contempt and order for costs were set aside.
2. The order for delivery of the vehicle had been made under section 1 of the Police (Property) Act 1897. The parties had not established, by a determination of legal principle, who was responsible for storage charges arising in circumstances of this kind.
3. The Chief Constable had raised a genuine issue in good faith. He had acted on legal advice that the storage debt was attributable to the owner and that the police had done what the law required to deliver the vehicle. The legal position was accepted to be far from clear.
4. In those circumstances, there was no basis for concluding that the Chief Constable had deliberately and intentionally flouted the court’s order. The existence of a bona fide dispute about the legal requirements of the order made a finding of contempt unsustainable.
5. The court regarded the underlying question of responsibility for storage charges as important, but it was unnecessary to determine it on this appeal. That question would have to be resolved in another case.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the Chief Constable’s appeal against the District Judge’s decision of 13 June 2005; set aside the finding of contempt and the costs order.