Caerphilly County Borough Council v Wells

Fabricating witnesses to strengthen a civil claim is a serious contempt of court warranting immediate imprisonment in the ordinary case. The court should nevertheless take account of mitigation and credit for admissions when fixing the term. A failure to disclose relevant medical history may be deprecated but is less serious where the information was already recorded and readily discoverable. The fact that the underlying claim may have been genuine, and the severe consequences for the contemnor and his family, do not ordinarily justify suspending the custodial sentence.

The defendant had brought a personal injury claim alleging that he had fallen on broken steps for which the claimant local authority was responsible. Shortly before trial, he discontinued the claim and accepted liability for the claimant’s costs. The claimant subsequently obtained permission to bring contempt proceedings.

Five allegations were initially made. The claimant did not pursue allegations that the accident and losses were wholly fabricated after the defendant admitted fabricating two supporting witnesses and failing to disclose an earlier road traffic accident to a consultant. The court therefore had to determine the seriousness of the admitted contempt and the appropriate custodial sentence.

1. The court treated the fabrication of two witnesses as the serious aspect of the contempt. The defendant had induced one person to give a false account of the alleged accident and had falsely named another person as having assisted him. Such conduct was intended to bolster the civil claim and exposed the fabricated witnesses to the risk of contempt proceedings.
2. The court held that making up falsehoods of this kind must be treated extremely seriously. In the ordinary case, immediate custody is appropriate. The possibility that the underlying personal injury claim might have been genuine did not materially reduce the seriousness of deliberately fabricating evidence.
3. The failure to mention the earlier road traffic accident to the consultant was deprecated but, standing alone, was not particularly serious. The earlier accident had been disclosed to the defendant’s general practitioner and appeared in the medical records, so an investigator could readily discover it.
4. The court took account of the defendant’s mitigation, including the loss of a possible genuine claim, substantial costs, financial hardship, family distress and his admissions before Burton J. Those matters justified reducing the sentence that would otherwise have been imposed, but did not justify suspension.
5. Had the matter proceeded to trial, the appropriate term would have been six weeks’ imprisonment. Allowing credit for the admissions, the court imposed four weeks’ imprisonment, of which half would ordinarily be served. The defendant was directed to surrender himself to the appropriate person.

Not stated in the judgment.