Balli, Re Contempt of Court Act 1981 (No. 2)

A contemnor has an unqualified and continuing right to apply to purge contempt and seek release during the sentence. The court must reconsider whether continued imprisonment remains absolutely necessary, taking account of the original sentencing principles, the contemnor’s evidence and remorse, prison experience, and any new matters. The court may order immediate release, deferred release at a stated date, or refuse release. It may require an undertaking, but cannot suspend or otherwise vary the unexpired sentence by imposing a fresh penalty. Genuine atonement must receive full weight.

The applicant had been committed to prison for six months for contempt in the face of the court. An intended appeal was not progressed. He then applied to purge his contempt and obtain release.

The central issue was whether, in light of his apology, remorse and experience of prison, continued imprisonment remained necessary, and if not, what release order should be made. The court also corrected its earlier explanation of the sentence under s 258(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

1. A committal order is a draconian order of last resort. A contemnor has an unqualified, continuing right to apply to purge contempt.
2. On such an application, the court must reconsider the sentence afresh and decide whether it remains absolutely necessary for the contemnor to serve the unexpired term. Relevant matters include the original sentence and its reasons, the contemnor’s evidence, prison experience, governing principles and further matters raised.
3. The available outcomes are immediate release, deferred release at a stated future date, or refusal. The court may extract an undertaking, but may not suspend the unexpired term or impose a fresh penalty.
4. General deterrence, which had not formed part of the original sentence, could not later be relied on to preserve it if reduction was otherwise appropriate.
5. The applicant’s sincere remorse, apology, good character and experience of prison justified substantial weight being given to purging and atonement. Immediate release was refused because the period already served did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the deliberate contempt. Release was ordered for 29 July 2011. The sentence was commuted to eight weeks, of which four weeks were to be served before unconditional release.

The judgment records that an intended appeal was not progressed. Rimer LJ dismissed an application to suspend the committal pending appeal but expedited the appeal. The applicant subsequently applied to the High Court to purge his contempt.