Aziz v Ali & Anor

Making a false statement verified by a statement of truth amounts to contempt where the maker lacks an honest belief in its truth and the statement has, or would be likely if persisted in to have, interfered with the course of justice, with the requisite knowledge of that likelihood. Dishonest claims for compensation undermine the administration of justice and may justify immediate imprisonment. The court must assess culpability and mitigation individually. Early admissions and genuine remorse may justify a shorter or suspended sentence. Late admissions may attract limited credit, while denial of the allegations is not itself an aggravating factor.

Four claimants faced committal proceedings arising from false personal-injury claims based on two non-existent road accidents. Their underlying claims had been dismissed after trial in Aziz v Ali and Anor; Jamil, Kazmi and Saleem v Serwan and Liverpool Victoria Insurance Services, [2014] EWHC 1846 (QB). Permission was then granted for contempt proceedings involving 33 allegations that the claimants had made false statements verified by statements of truth without an honest belief in their truth.

Mr Aziz and Mrs Kazmi admitted the allegations when they were first put. Mr Jamil and Mrs Saleem initially denied them but admitted them later during the hearing. The central issues were whether the allegations were proved and what sanctions were appropriate in light of the seriousness of the conduct, the timing of admissions, remorse and personal circumstances.

1. The court found the allegations proved and imposed custodial sentences. Mr Aziz was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, Mr Jamil and Mrs Saleem to eight months’ imprisonment each, and Mrs Kazmi to 12 weeks’ imprisonment suspended for six months.

2. Under CPR 32.14(1), contempt may be committed where a person makes or causes to be made a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. The conduct must also have interfered, or would be likely if persisted in to interfere, with the course of justice, and the person must have known of that likelihood. The court applied that framework to the false particulars of claim and witness statements.

3. Dishonest statements in litigation are exceptionally serious. They undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, impose substantial costs on insurers and honest policyholders, and consume court and public resources. Those who make false claims should expect imprisonment in appropriate cases. The court referred to AXA Insurance UK plc v Rossiter [2013] EWHC 3805 (QB), South Wales Fire and Rescue Service [2011] EWHC 1749 and Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company v Bashir and others [2012] EWHC 895 (Admin).

4. Sentences depended on individual culpability and mitigation. Genuine remorse, prompt admissions and cooperation could justify a shorter or suspended sentence. Late admissions attracted only limited credit. Continuing denial was not an aggravating factor and could not justify increasing the sentence.

5. Although none of the four individuals organised the fraudulent scheme, each was a willing participant. Mrs Saleem’s status as a passenger rather than the driver did not materially reduce culpability. Mrs Kazmi’s early admissions, disclosure of the fraud before trial and genuine remorse justified suspension of her sentence.

The judgment itself records that the underlying compensation claims were dismissed after a five-day trial on 9 June 2014 in Aziz v Ali and Anor; Jamil, Kazmi and Saleem v Serwan and Liverpool Victoria Insurance Services, [2014] EWHC 1846 (QB). Permission was subsequently granted for the contempt proceedings. This judgment determined the committal application.