Newman (Number 2)

In contempt proceedings, the court may defer sentence where the primary objective is to prevent repetition of the misconduct and subsequent compliance provides a material mitigating factor. That objective may outweigh the need for immediate custody. Deferral may be ordered on terms that any further breach triggers reconsideration of the proved contempts and may justify immediate imprisonment. Permission may be given to discontinue a further committal application where the original proceedings have achieved their practical purpose and continued prosecution would serve no useful purpose.

The judgment concerned a further stage of committal proceedings brought by Gloucestershire County Council against Matthew John Newman. In an earlier judgment, the court had found some alleged contempts proved, deferred sentencing, and reserved a further committal application after late service of additional allegations.

The local authority subsequently confirmed that it would not pursue the further application. There had been no repetition of the relevant behaviour since the earlier hearing. The issues were whether permission should be given to discontinue the second application and what sentence, if any, should follow for the contempts already proved.

1. Discontinuance. Permission was granted under Practice Direction 37A, paragraph 13.3, for the local authority to discontinue its second committal application. The earlier hearing had established the breaches, demonstrated that such conduct would not be tolerated, and appeared to have secured compliance. It was inappropriate to require the authority to continue the application.
2. Deferral of sentence. The court identified two possible courses: immediate sentencing after hearing mitigation, or deferral for a fixed period on terms. Although immediate sentencing would be appropriate in most contempt cases, sentence was deferred until 25 September 2015. The principal objective was to prevent repetition of the misconduct. That objective outweighed the need for immediate custody on the facts, particularly because the absence of further breaches was a material mitigating factor.
3. The deferral was intended to preserve a continuing and uncertain threat of punishment. If there was any breach of the order made on 25 September 2014 before the expiry of the deferral period, the defendant would be brought back before the court and sentenced both for the proved contempts and for any further proved breaches. Immediate imprisonment, likely for a lengthy period, could then be expected.
4. The court reaffirmed that family courts will not tolerate harassment, intimidation, threats or menaces directed at participants in the court process. Immediate custodial and deterrent sentences may be appropriate where necessary to protect the administration of justice and those involved in proceedings.

The judgment followed an earlier judgment in the same committal proceedings, [2014] EWHC 3136 (Fam), in which some contempts were found proved and sentence was deferred.