Newman, Re An Application By Gloucestershire County Council for the Committal To Prison of

Contempt proceedings require proof to the criminal standard. An allegation should not proceed where the evidence does not establish a prima facie case.

An injunction is enforceable by committal only if it is clear, precise and unambiguous. It must identify directly and specifically the person, group or class bound by it. A prohibition expressed in the abstract cannot be enforced by imprisonment.

Whether conduct amounts to harassment is a question of fact and degree after construing the word in its context. Repeated communications, their content, tone, recipients and surrounding circumstances are relevant. Freedom to criticise public officials does not protect deliberate harassment, intimidation, threats or menaces.

Gloucestershire County Council applied to commit Matthew John Newman for contempt following care and placement orders concerning his son. The alleged breaches concerned prohibitions on seeking the child’s whereabouts and harassing local-authority employees, and requirements concerning social-media accounts and publication of information identifying the child or officials.

The court considered whether two allegations disclosed a prima facie case, whether the social-media prohibition was sufficiently certain to support committal, whether a series of emails and a Facebook message constituted harassment, and whether the social-media material breached the order. The court also addressed procedural defects in the penal notices and the consequences for sentencing.

1. Procedural defects. The failure to comply precisely with the penal-notice requirements in rule 37.9(1) of the Family Procedure Rules was waived under paragraph 13.2 of PD37A because no injustice would be caused. Meticulous compliance remained essential.
2. No case to answer. Contempt allegations had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The judge had a responsibility, particularly where a respondent appeared in person, to consider whether a realistic no-case submission arose. The evidence that a mobile phone had been placed in the child’s changing bag did not establish a prima facie case that the respondent had taken steps to ascertain the child’s whereabouts. That allegation was dismissed.
3. Certainty of injunctions. An injunction enforceable by committal must be clear, precise and unambiguous and must identify the person or class required to obey it. The prohibition in paragraph 2 of the 16 July order was expressed in the abstract and did not identify whom it bound. It could not be supplemented by referring to the application, surrounding circumstances or the word “Further”. The allegation based on that paragraph was dismissed.
4. Harassment. “Harassing” was construed as an ordinary English word. Whether conduct satisfied that meaning was a question of fact and degree. Relevant circumstances included the number and frequency of communications, their content and tone, their recipients and the wider context. Fourteen emails over just over four weeks, containing personalised attacks, menaces, threats, demands and a countdown, amounted to deliberate psychological intimidation. Sending a message to a victim’s mother aggravated the conduct.
5. Social-media breach and outcome. The continued accessibility of the Facebook account and material identifying the child proved, to the criminal standard, a breach of the deletion and non-reactivation requirements. The respondent was therefore guilty of two contempts: harassment under the 16 May order and breach of paragraph 1 of the 16 July order. Sentence was deferred, with attendance required if called upon, pending the local authority’s decision about further committal proceedings.
6. Freedom of expression. The court reaffirmed the importance of robust criticism of the family justice system and public officials. That protection did not extend to harassment, intimidation, threats or menaces, which the family courts could restrain where necessary to protect participants and the administration of justice.

The judgment records that permission to appeal against the underlying care and placement orders was refused by the Court of Appeal on 30 July 2014. The present decision was a first-instance determination of the local authority’s committal application.