Ramet, Re application for the committal to prison

A court dealing with contempt must sentence for the contempt, not for the underlying crime. Where the same conduct has already resulted in criminal conviction and punishment, the court must take the criminal sentence fully into account and must not punish the offender twice. It should sentence only for conduct not already punished. Violence in family proceedings is likely to justify an immediate and substantial custodial sentence, and serious violence should be considered for prosecution in the Crown Court. The statutory penalties available under the County Courts Act 1984 were regarded as inadequate in modern conditions.

During family proceedings in the County Court, Simon Abraham Ramet assaulted his former wife and a court clerk. He was subsequently convicted in the Crown Court of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and common assault and received a sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment, with a concurrent four-month sentence.

The County Court then issued a committal summons alleging the same conduct under sections 118 and 14 of the County Courts Act 1984. The allegations were admitted before the High Court. The central issue was whether any further sentence could properly be imposed after the Crown Court proceedings.

1. No additional sentence. The court made findings on both allegations but imposed no further order. The respondent had already been prosecuted and sentenced for the whole of the relevant conduct.
2. Double punishment. The task under sections 14 and 118 of the County Courts Act 1984 was to sentence for contempt, rather than for the crimes. The outcome of the Crown Court proceedings had to be taken into account. A second court must not sentence for conduct already punished and may sentence only for conduct not covered by the criminal proceedings. The principles in Smith v Smith [1991] 2 FLR 55, Lomas v Parle [2003] EWCA Civ 1804 and Slade v Slade [2009] EWCA Civ 748 were applied.
3. The assault on the clerk was already punished as common assault. The aggravating circumstance that the clerk was assaulted while working in court had also been taken into account in the Crown Court sentence.
4. The attack on the respondent’s former wife involved both disturbance in the courtroom and an attack on a party to proceedings. The Crown Court sentence expressly reflected the courtroom location, the victim’s vulnerability and the proceedings’ family context. Any further sentence would therefore punish the same conduct twice.
5. Wider guidance. Violent disorder or physical violence in court should ordinarily attract an immediate and lengthy custodial sentence. Serious violence should be considered for prosecution in the Crown Court. The court expressed serious concern that the penalties available under the 1984 Act were inadequate.
6. The court also confirmed that criminal public funding was available for contempt proceedings under regulation 9(v) of the Criminal Legal Aid (General) Regulations 2013, applying Hammerton v Hammerton [2007] EWCA Civ 248.