Grant, Re

Contempt proceedings are civil proceedings and may continue in the defendant’s deliberate absence where the defendant knew of the hearing, had an opportunity to respond, and had already stated his position. Wilful absence does not prevent the court from determining the application. The court need not adjourn sentencing to hear further representations where the defendant has already explained his position and identifies no relevant mitigation or factual issue. Breach of a restraint order must be proved to the criminal standard. Deliberate and continuing non-compliance, particularly where accompanied by defiance, abuse or threats, may justify imprisonment. Personal objections to the legal system do not excuse non-compliance with a court order.

The defendant had been convicted of drug-trafficking offences and remained liable under a confiscation order. After investigations suggested that he had an interest in property, the court made a restraint order requiring detailed disclosure of assets. The defendant was personally served but failed to provide the required witness statement or continuing disclosure.

At a hearing dealing with both enforcement of the restraint order and committal, the defendant gave irrelevant evidence, repeatedly challenged the court’s jurisdiction, and was required to leave. He did not attend the committal hearing the following day. The central issues were whether the court could proceed in his absence, whether the breaches were proved, and what sentence was appropriate.

1. The court proceeded in the defendant’s absence. The defendant knew the nature and dates of the proceedings, had previously resisted an adjournment, and had already filed material setting out his position. His absence was deliberate and did not prevent the civil contempt proceedings from continuing. The approach was supported by Philimore v Surrey County Council [2010] EWCA Civ 61. The court noted that the power to compel attendance by bench warrant was more uncertain, referring to Zakharov and others v White and others [2003] EWHC 2463 (Ch).
2. The breaches were proved. The restraint order had been personally served and contained clear disclosure obligations. The required witness statement was not served by the due date, and no subsequent disclosure was made. The defendant’s response was a deliberate refusal to comply, rather than an explanation of inability or procedural defect. The breaches therefore satisfied the criminal standard of proof and amounted to contempt.
3. No further sentencing adjournment was required. Although an adjournment had been used in Philimore, the Court of Appeal had not imposed a general requirement to hear representations on sentence where committal proceeds in the defendant’s absence. The defendant had identified no relevant mitigation and had made his position clear.
4. Sentence. A fine was inadequate, and sequestration was unavailable or inappropriate. The deliberate, continuing defiance of the court, supported by abuse and threats, justified imprisonment. The defendant received one month for the initial breach and two consecutive months for the continuing breach, with release after half the total sentence and liberty to apply to purge the contempt by complying with the disclosure order.