Smith v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

A committal sentence for breach of an injunction has coercive and punitive elements, but neither element is considered in isolation when a contemnor seeks discharge. The court must review the contemnor’s conduct after sentence and decide whether it justifies release. Persistent non-compliance aggravates the original conduct and may increase the punitive weight of the sentence. The loss of practical power to comply may remove coercion, but it does not by itself require release or establish that the contempt has been purged.

The appellant had been subject to injunctions requiring him to cease residential, office and business uses of a farm and to remove associated structures, materials and hardcore. After breaches were proved, a 12-month custodial sentence was imposed and initially suspended. Following continued non-compliance, nine months of the sentence were ordered to be served.

The appellant subsequently lost possession of the farm and argued that he could no longer remove the remaining hardcore. His application for release was refused by His Honour Judge Seymour QC. The appeal concerned whether the disappearance of any practical coercive effect required discharge and whether the punitive element continued for the whole sentence.

1. Appeal dismissed. Sir Stanley Burnton gave the reasons, and Lord Justice Pitchford agreed.
2. A committal sentence for breach of an injunction serves both coercive and punitive purposes. The punitive element is not necessarily fixed when the sentence is imposed. Persistent failure to comply after sentence aggravates the gravity of the conduct and may increase the weight of the punitive element.
3. In assessing an application for release, the court must review the applicant’s conduct after sentence and determine whether it justifies discharge. The fact that circumstances have removed the practical coercive effect of the injunction does not, without more, require the sentence to be discharged.
4. The approach was consistent with JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko and others [2011] EWCA Civ 1241; [2012] 1 WLR 350, which recognised the relevance of prompt and full compliance after sentence. Here, the appellant had continued to flout the injunction before losing possession of the farm. There was no evidence that he had purged his contempt. Judge Seymour had therefore made no error of law in refusing release.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal against the refusal of release from the remaining custodial sentence.
2. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: His Honour Judge Seymour QC refused the appellant’s application for discharge on 27 November 2013.