London Borough of Islington v Williams & Anor

A sentence for contempt must reflect the seriousness of the breach while taking account of relevant mitigation. A respondent’s disagreement with an underlying care order is irrelevant when sentencing for breach of a separate collection order. Where the contempt is sufficiently serious, a fine or suspended sentence may be inadequate. The court may impose the shortest immediate custodial sentence that properly matches the seriousness of the contempt and may recognise primary caring responsibilities as mitigation.

The respondent had been found in contempt of court, to the criminal standard of proof, for breaching paragraphs 3(a) and (b) of a collection order made by Holman J. She had been remanded in custody pending sentence. The sentencing issue was the appropriate penalty for the breach, including the relevance of her opposition to an existing care order, her attempts to contact the press, and her responsibility for caring for a 15-year-old girl.

1. Sentence imposed. The contempt was very serious. A fine and a suspended sentence were insufficient. The shortest sentence matching the seriousness of the breach, while allowing for mitigation, was three months’ imprisonment.
2. The respondent’s opposition to the care order was irrelevant to sentence. She was entitled to disagree with it personally, but sentence was imposed solely for breach of the collection order.
3. The court took account of the respondent’s responsibility as the primary carer of a 15-year-old girl. That circumstance distinguished her case from that of the second respondent, who had received four months’ imprisonment. The sentence was therefore reduced by one month.
4. Half of the sentence was to be served in custody, with time spent on remand credited. The respondent could apply at any stage to purge her contempt by complying with the disclosure order concerning the whereabouts of her son. The judge indicated that the punitive element had already been served and that she would be released when the child was found.
5. An application for bail pending appeal was refused, without prejudice to a renewed application to the Court of Appeal.