Roddy, R. v

A custodial sentence for contempt consisting of a deliberate breach of a restraint order may properly deter conduct which frustrates the administration of justice. The sentence must nevertheless reflect a guilty admission and be proportionate to comparable serious breaches.

A sentencer must not effectively punish the same conduct twice. False mitigation given at the trial of separate offences could not reduce credit for the later contempt plea where the sentence for those offences had already reflected the contested trial and that false account. A consecutive sentence was proper because the contempt, the drug offending and any default term under a confiscation order were distinct matters.

The appellant sold a property shortly after being served with a restraint order prohibiting him from dealing with his assets. He removed the sale proceeds from the jurisdiction and later admitted that this breached the order.

At Bolton Crown Court, Recorder Osborne sentenced him to 20 months’ imprisonment for contempt, consecutive to a seven-year sentence for drug offences. The Recorder treated the appellant’s false explanation for the sale, given during the drugs trial, as substantially reducing the mitigation available for his contempt plea.

The appellant appealed against sentence. He relied on the length of the starting point, credit for his admission and totality.

1. Appeal allowed. The 20-month sentence for contempt was quashed and replaced by 15 months’ imprisonment, consecutive to the seven-year sentence for drug offences.
2. The breach was a flagrant contempt. The appellant had deliberately defeated the immediate practical effect of a restraint order. A deterrent custodial sentence was therefore necessary to demonstrate that the court would not tolerate frustration of the administration of justice.
3. R v Adewunmi [2008] EWCA Crim 71 was a useful sentencing comparison. It showed that even a deliberate, cunning, sophisticated and sustained breach of a restraint order did not justify 18 months’ imprisonment where guilt was admitted. On the facts of this case, the deterrent purpose could be achieved by 15 months.
4. The Recorder erred in treating the appellant’s false account of the reason for selling the property as reducing credit for his contempt plea. That account had been given during the fully contested drugs trial. The seven-year sentence for those offences had already reflected both the absence of a guilty plea and the appellant’s false explanation. It was wrong in principle to hold those same matters against him again when sentencing the contempt.
5. The contempt was separate from the drug offences. A consecutive sentence did not offend totality. It was also separate from any default sentence that might follow non-compliance with the confiscation order.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed the 20-month sentence for contempt and substituted 15 months’ imprisonment, consecutive to the drugs sentence.
• Bolton Crown Court: Recorder Osborne sentenced the appellant to 20 months’ imprisonment for contempt of court, consecutive to the seven-year sentence for drug offences.