London Borough of Havering, R (on the application of) v Bowyer & Ors

False claims and fabricated evidence seriously damage the administration of justice and public confidence in the courts. In serious cases of contempt involving deliberate dishonesty in litigation, immediate imprisonment may be necessary to mark the gravity of the conduct and deter others. Sentence must nevertheless reflect each contemnor’s individual culpability, including their role, persistence, admissions, remorse, character and personal circumstances. Different levels of responsibility within a common dishonest scheme justify materially different terms of imprisonment.

The London Borough of Havering brought contempt proceedings against Mark Bowyer, James Jones and Richard Bowyer arising from dishonest personal injury litigation. Mark Bowyer and James Jones admitted parts of the contempt; Richard Bowyer contested it. The court was required to sentence the contemnors, assess their respective responsibility for the continuing deception, determine whether it was necessary to resolve disputed conspiracy counts, and decide the appropriate custodial terms and costs.

1. Disposition. Each contemnor received an immediate custodial sentence. Mark Bowyer was sentenced to two months, James Jones to one month, and Richard Bowyer to four months. The sentences ran concurrently on all counts to which admissions or convictions related. Costs were ordered on an indemnity basis, and each defendant was required to surrender to the Tipstaff.
2. Seriousness of contempt. Applying the reasoning in South Wales Fire and Rescue Service v Smith [2011] EWHC 1749 (Admin), the court held that dishonest claims impose substantial burdens on defendants, honest claimants and the court, and undermine the openness and honesty on which adversarial justice depends. A prison sentence was therefore inevitable in each case.
3. Individual culpability. Sentence had to reflect the different roles played in the deception. James Jones was treated as a supportive participant who had been carried along and was unlikely to obtain financial benefit. Mark Bowyer bore greater responsibility, although his admissions and genuine injury attracted credit. Richard Bowyer was the driving force behind the continued deception and bore the greatest responsibility.
4. Mitigation. The court considered admissions, remorse, age, good character, health, personal circumstances, character references and the loss of employment and reputation. Admissions attracted greater credit for Mark Bowyer than for James Jones. The court also treated the loss of good character as a punishment in itself.
5. Conspiracy counts. It was unnecessary to determine the remaining disputed conspiracy allegations. The substantive admissions and convictions were sufficient for sentencing purposes.