Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Watson

On an application to purge contempt, the court’s powers are confined to three outcomes: immediate release, release deferred to a stated future date, or refusal of the application. The court has no power to impose or suspend a fresh term of imprisonment when allowing the application. A judge bound by an indistinguishable Court of Appeal decision must correct an unlawful order and substitute the order required by that authority.

Elizabeth Watson was found in contempt of court and sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment. On her application to purge the contempt, the court ordered her release and suspended the sentence for two years. The judge was subsequently referred to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Harris v Harris, [2001] EWCA Civ 1645; [2002] 1 FLR 248, which concerned materially similar orders. The central issue was whether the court had jurisdiction, when allowing an application to purge contempt, to suspend the balance of the sentence.

1. The court was bound by Harris v Harris, [2001] EWCA Civ 1645; [2002] 1 FLR 248, and could not distinguish it.
2. On an application to purge contempt, the court may do only one of three things: grant the application and order immediate release; defer release to a stated future date; or refuse the application. The permissible answers are therefore, in substance, yes, no, or not yet.
3. The court had no power to suspend Ms Watson’s sentence after allowing her application. The suspended sentence was set aside and replaced by an order for her immediate and unconditional release.
4. The judge added that the original nine-month sentence was appropriate given the gravity of the contempt. He also endorsed the practical warning that, following unconditional release, a further breach may be taken into account in sentencing, including the unserved part of the earlier sentence, subject to the overall limit identified in Harris v Harris.

The judgment itself records no appeal from the present decision. It refers to the earlier Court of Appeal decision in Harris v Harris, [2001] EWCA Civ 1645 ; [2002] 1 FLR 248 , as binding authority.