Adewunmi, R v

A committal sentence for deliberate breach of a restraining order may properly contain punitive and coercive elements. It may also include deterrence, particularly where a fraudster has deliberately and persistently dealt with restrained assets to prevent recovery of criminal proceeds.

The sentence must nevertheless reflect the particular contempts. An early admission, subsequent repatriation or likely recovery of assets, and the total custodial consequences may justify a reduction. The maximum available sentence and sentences imposed in other cases do not displace the case-specific assessment.

The appellant had been convicted of fraudulent trading and removing criminal property from England and Wales. A restraining order made at the Crown Court at Southwark prohibited dealings with assets in the United Kingdom and abroad and required repatriation of overseas funds.

He admitted several deliberate breaches. He had not repatriated funds and had transferred assets from the United States to Cyprus through sophisticated arrangements intended to prevent recovery. The Crown Court sentenced him for contempt to 18 months’ imprisonment, consecutive to his existing four-year sentence.

He appealed against that sentence. The central issue was whether 18 months was excessive for the admitted contempts.

1. Appeal allowed. The 18-month sentence for contempt was reduced to 12 months’ imprisonment, consecutive to the existing sentence.

2. A committal for contempt in these circumstances ordinarily serves two functions. It punishes deliberate breach of the court’s order and coerces the contemnor to comply with the continuing obligation. Both functions were engaged here.

3. A deterrent element was also appropriate. The breaches were deliberate, sustained and sophisticated. They involved overseas assets, the use of a British Virgin Islands company, and steps designed to prevent recovery of proceeds from serious fraud. The appellant appeared willing to serve further imprisonment if that enabled him to retain criminal gains.

4. The sentencing judge was therefore entitled to treat the contempts as very serious. The statutory maximum of two years, the early admissions, and lower sentences in unreported Crown Court cases did not prevent a substantial consecutive sentence. Sentences for breach of restraining orders ultimately depend on their particular circumstances.

5. However, 18 months was excessive. The court’s initial view was that 15 months would have been appropriate. It reduced the term further because about £100,000 had been repatriated from the United States, a further sum might be recovered from Cyprus, and assets valued at about £236,000 appeared available for recovery in the United Kingdom.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal and substituted 12 months’ imprisonment for the 18-month consecutive sentence imposed for contempt.

• Crown Court at Southwark: On 22 June 2007, sentenced the appellant to 18 months’ imprisonment for admitted contempt arising from breaches of a restraining order.