Lexi Holdings Plc v Luqman & Ors

In committal proceedings, the court may increase a sentence provisionally indicated where the respondent’s intervening conduct aggravates the established contempt. This may include deliberately misleading the court and producing fabricated evidence. The additional punishment addresses the aggravating conduct, rather than imposing a second penalty for the original contempt. It need not necessarily be dealt with by a fresh committal application. Evidence from a witness who is not available for cross-examination may be given little weight. Allegations relied upon to increase punishment must nevertheless satisfy the criminal standard of proof; uncorroborated hearsay which has not been tested in cross-examination should be excluded where attribution remains uncertain.

Mr Luqman sought to reopen findings concerning three breaches of an order involving Mr Cheema, relying on further affidavits and purported evidence. The claimant sought both dismissal of that application and an increase in the provisional sentences previously indicated for the three breaches. After assessing the competing evidence, including evidence that the material relied upon by Mr Luqman was fabricated or procured by intimidation, the court considered whether the provisional sentences could be increased within the existing committal proceedings.

1. Mr Luqman’s application dismissed. The court found beyond reasonable doubt that the purported evidence relied upon by him was wholly unreliable. It found no evidential basis for modifying the earlier findings on the Cheema grounds.
2. Evidence from witnesses who had not attended for cross-examination could be treated as carrying very little weight. The court applied the approach illustrated by Comet Products v Hawkex Plastics [1971] 2 QB 67 and Great Future International Ltd v Sealand Housing Corporation, referred to at paragraph 26.
3. The court accepted that a provisional indication of sentence could be increased to reflect intervening conduct aggravating an established contempt. The additional punishment was for the later conduct, including the deliberate attempt to mislead the court and pervert the course of justice. It was not a second punishment for the original contempt and did not require a fresh committal application. The court distinguished the rule concerning an imposed sentence in Westcott v Westcott [1985] FLR 616 (CA).
4. The court declined to rely on allegations of bribery and threats in increasing the sentence. Although the judge considered those allegations serious and potentially persuasive on the balance of probabilities, he could not be sure beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Luqman, rather than other family members, was responsible. The evidence concerning threats to Mr Cheema was hearsay, uncorroborated and untested.
5. The provisional sentences for each of the three Cheema grounds were increased from 18 months to two years’ imprisonment, subject to a final opportunity for brief mitigation.