Unknown case

When deciding whether to release a contemnor who has been imprisoned for breaching an injunction, the court must balance the punitive purpose of committal against its coercive purpose. The court may release the contemnor where the period served sufficiently satisfies the penal element and release provides the best prospect of future compliance. The continuing injunction remains binding, and any further breach may attract a further custodial sentence, including the unserved part of the original sentence. Practical guidance concerning the consequences of renewed contempt may be given to secure compliance.

Ladbrokes Betting and Gaming Limited obtained injunctions restraining Terence Edwards from entering its premises, gambling there and harassing its employees. After admitting earlier breaches, Mr Edwards received a 12-month custodial committal order, initially suspended. The suspension was lifted after further breaches were found, and he was imprisoned.

Mr Edwards applied for release on the basis that he had purged his contempt. He accepted the breaches, expressed regret and undertook to comply with the injunction. The court had to determine whether the time already served was sufficient and whether release would better serve the punitive or coercive purposes of the committal order.

1. Application granted. Mr Edwards was released from prison because the 24 days already served were sufficient to satisfy the penal element of the committal order, while release offered the best prospect of securing future compliance.
2. A committal for contempt may serve two distinct purposes: punishment for the breach and coercion to encourage compliance with the continuing order. The court must balance those purposes in the circumstances of the individual case.
3. The injunction made by Stadlen J remained in force. Mr Edwards remained liable to proceedings for any further breach. The court was entitled to explain that renewed contempt could lead to imprisonment for the unserved part of the original sentence together with a further sentence, subject to the applicable overall limit.
4. The practical guidance in Harris v Harris [2002] FLR 253, concerning release following a suspended committal order and the consequences of further breaches, supported that approach.
5. The claimant’s costs were summarily assessed at £4,800, payable by Mr Edwards.

First-instance application to the High Court concerning release from imprisonment for contempt. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.