Suffolk County Council v H

Contempt of court is proved to the criminal standard, and the burden remains on the party bringing the committal application. Imprisonment is not automatic, including for a serious first breach. The court must nevertheless enforce compliance with its orders and may impose immediate custody where the contempts are sufficiently serious that a fine or suspended committal sentence would not adequately reflect their gravity. The sentence should be the shortest term that matches the seriousness of the contempt while allowing for mitigation. Separate contempts may run concurrently, with a further term for a distinct contempt in the face of the court. A contemnor may apply to purge the contempt by demonstrating a complete change of position and future compliance.

The local authority obtained an injunction restricting the respondent’s publication of material concerning care proceedings, contact with local-authority staff, and threats, harassment or intimidation. The respondent admitted publishing videos and communications, contacting staff and media, and making a threat to a local-authority manager in court. Earlier care and placement orders concerning his child, and an unsuccessful appeal, formed the background. The issue was the appropriate disposal of the admitted contempts, including whether custody was justified and how mitigation, concurrent terms and the possibility of purging contempt should be addressed.

1. The local authority bore the burden of proof, and the criminal standard applied. The court had to be sure that each breach had occurred. The respondent was not required to prove anything.
2. Imprisonment was not an automatic consequence of breaching an order. There was no rule requiring imprisonment for a first breach. The court nevertheless had to secure obedience to its orders and to mark the seriousness of conduct that abused or threatened people protected by the injunction. The court considered the dicta in Hale v Tanner and A v A.
3. The breaches, particularly the threat made to the local-authority manager in court, were sufficiently serious to justify immediate imprisonment. A fine and a suspended sentence of committal were inadequate. The sentence imposed had to be the shortest term matching the seriousness of the contempt, while taking account of mitigation, including the respondent’s distress, apology and other personal circumstances.
4. A two-month term was imposed for the breaches alleged in the committal application, to run concurrently, with a further consecutive month for the contempt in the face of the court. The total sentence was three months, of which one half was to be served in custody.
5. The respondent remained entitled to apply to purge his contempt. That would require a complete change of position and an acceptance that the injunction would thereafter be obeyed. On a later application, the court accepted his apology and undertaking of future compliance and released him.

The judgment records that a care order and placement order had previously been made. An attempted appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 12 December 2013. Those decisions formed part of the background to this committal application and were not decisions under appeal in the present judgment.