Hammerton v Hammerton

Where contempt in the face of the court is serious, premeditated and disruptive, the custody threshold may be passed. If imprisonment is imposed, the term should be as short as possible having regard to all the circumstances, while marking the court’s disapproval. Exceptional mitigation may make a sentence excessive even though immediate custody remains appropriate. The unusual and pressing background in this case justified reducing two months’ imprisonment to 28 days. The decision was expressly confined to its particular facts and was not a general sentencing precedent.

The appellant admitted contempt after disrupting private family proceedings, throwing eggs at the judge and shouting words taken from an earlier Court of Appeal judgment concerning his family litigation. On 30 March 2007, Ryder J imposed two months’ immediate imprisonment. The contempt was premeditated, and counsel accepted that it passed the custody threshold. The appeal concerned whether the sentence was excessive in light of the serious procedural and administrative errors previously identified in the related proceedings, and whether imprisonment should be suspended or reduced. The central issue was the proper sentence for this serious contempt in its unusual factual context.

Appeal allowed. The sentence of two months’ immediate imprisonment was quashed and a sentence of 28 days’ immediate imprisonment substituted.

1. The contempt was serious. It was premeditated, involved a gross insult to the judge, and disrupted the orderly process of litigation between parties appearing in private proceedings. Counsel properly conceded that the custody threshold was crossed.
2. Immediate imprisonment was appropriate. Suspension would not adequately reflect the purpose of sentencing for contempt committed in the face of the court.
3. The length of any custodial sentence should be as short as possible having regard to the circumstances of the particular case. The sentence must mark the court’s disapproval while reflecting relevant mitigation.
4. The appellant’s acute grievance was understandable in the light of the earlier appellate findings concerning serious procedural failures in related litigation, including failures concerning representation, the joinder of applications, and the warning that he was not obliged to give evidence. Those circumstances provided unusually strong mitigation, but did not excuse the new contempt, which disrupted proceedings between strangers.
5. On the particular facts, two months was excessive and 28 days was the appropriate sentence. The court emphasised that the decision was not a precedent for what might properly be done in other cases.

• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: Ryder J imposed two months’ immediate imprisonment for contempt of court on 30 March 2007.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed in [2007] EWCA Civ 465. The sentence was quashed and 28 days’ immediate imprisonment substituted.