McCann & Anor v Bennett (Sentencing Remarks)

Committal proceedings primarily serve to secure future compliance with undertakings given to the court. Where breaches are intentional and sufficiently serious, and the harm caused is substantial, a custodial sentence may be required to reflect their seriousness. The sentence may be suspended where future compliance can adequately protect the authority of the court and the interests of the opposing party. A suspended sentence may be activated if the contemnor breaches the undertakings during the suspension period.

The claimants brought committal proceedings alleging breaches of undertakings given by the defendant in an order dated 25 November 2009. In an earlier judgment handed down the same day, [2013] EWHC 283 (QB), the court found thirteen breaches, while making no finding on numerous other alleged breaches. The sentencing hearing concerned whether a penalty should be imposed and, if so, its appropriate form. The central issue was the sentence required to secure future compliance with the undertakings and reflect the seriousness of the breaches.

1. The court had power under section 14 of the Contempt of Court 1981 to impose imprisonment for up to two years, either immediately or on suspension, and also had power to impose a fine.
2. The overriding purpose of committal proceedings is to secure future compliance with undertakings flouted by the contemnor. The court must therefore assess the seriousness of the breaches and the need to protect future compliance.
3. The defendant had acted intentionally and deliberately flouted the undertakings. The breaches had caused injury to the claimants’ reputations and feelings. The claimants and their solicitors had repeatedly warned him of the seriousness and consequences of his conduct, and had incurred substantial costs in seeking compliance.
4. Although the defendant’s conduct was sufficiently serious that nothing less than custody would properly reflect the breaches and resulting harm, mitigation included his personal circumstances and a sincere apology made at the sentencing hearing. A sentence of three months’ imprisonment was therefore imposed but suspended for one year.
5. The suspension was conditional upon compliance with the undertakings while they remained in force during that period. A further breach could result in the defendant being brought before the court to serve the sentence, in addition to any sentence imposed for the further breach.
6. The defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed. Directions concerning his application to vary or discharge the undertakings were to be set out in a subsequent order.

The sentencing remarks followed findings of thirteen breaches in an earlier judgment handed down the same day, [2013] EWHC 283 (QB). No appeal history is stated.