Baird, R v

A continuing and wilful failure to give asset disclosure required by a restraint order may justify immediate imprisonment for contempt where the contemnor has had adequate time to comply. Imprisonment for contempt serves punitive, deterrent and coercive purposes. The continuing ability to purge the contempt is relevant to sentence, but does not preclude a substantial custodial term. The proportionality of sentence depends on the purpose of committal, the contemnor’s conduct, the prospect of compliance and any other coercive sanctions. Sentencing outcomes in other restraint-order cases must be assessed in their particular context.

The appellant, charged with fraud, became subject to a restraint order under section 41 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2003. He admitted five breaches. The principal breach was his continuing failure to make the required full disclosure of assets. The others included dealing with money and using false identities after the order was made.

At the Central Criminal Court, the judge imposed 18 months’ imprisonment for the disclosure breach and concurrent six-month terms for the remaining breaches. The appellant contended that he should have been allowed further time to comply and that 18 months was excessive. The central issue was whether immediate committal and the term imposed were proper.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge was entitled, and was right, to conclude that further time should not be allowed before imposing immediate custody.

2. The disclosure failure was continuing and wilful. The appellant had had since June to comply, but his eventual statement was materially incomplete. It omitted, among other matters, a transfer of property and a sale of a valuable motor car. His use of false passports and false names to open and operate an account also fatally undermined the suggested co-operation with the Serious Fraud Office.

3. Imprisonment for contempt may be coercive as well as punitive and deterrent. The appellant retained the ability to purge his contempt by making proper disclosure. That feature showed that the committal was primarily coercive, but it did not make immediate custody or the term imposed inappropriate.

4. The judge properly had regard to Lightfoot v Lightfoot [1989] FLR 414 and recognised the two-year statutory maximum, while treating that maximum as excessive on these facts. The other sentencing comparisons did not assist. In R v Adewunmi [2008] 2 Cr App R(S) 52, repatriation of funds and a confiscation default term materially affected the reduction. In R v Roddy [2010] 2 Cr App R(S) 107, the sentence was punitive and deterrent and was improperly close to the maximum.

5. The 18-month term was neither disproportionate nor manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against the committal and sentence.

• Central Criminal Court: imposed 18 months’ imprisonment for the continuing disclosure breach and concurrent six-month terms for the other admitted breaches of the restraint order.