Saleem, R (On the Application Of) v Serwan & Anor

In sentencing for contempt of court, a late admission does not automatically require equal sentences for co-contemnors. The ordinary credit for a guilty plea at the door of the court is distinct from the question whether disparity makes an otherwise appropriate sentence excessive. An appellate court should not reduce a proper sentence merely because another contemnor received greater leniency. The judge who heard the proceedings is best placed to assess persistence, repetition, individual conduct and genuine remorse. An eight-month sentence remained appropriate where the contempts were persistent and repetitive and the contemnor had not shown the remorse displayed by another person who admitted guilt earlier.

Mrs Saleem brought an appeal as of right against an order committing her to prison for eight months for contempt of court. Her contempt consisted of false statements verified by statements of truth in personal injury proceedings arising from an alleged road accident.

Lewis J had dismissed the underlying claims after finding that the alleged accidents had not occurred: [2014] EWHC 1846 (QB). In the subsequent contempt proceedings, Mrs Saleem initially denied the allegations but admitted them after the hearing had begun. She argued that her sentence was excessive because another contemnor, Mr Aziz, had received six months after admitting responsibility earlier on the same day. The central issue was whether guilty-plea credit and sentence disparity required a reduction.

The appeal was dismissed.

1. The court accepted that, in the normal course, a guilty plea entered at the door of the court attracts a reduction of about 10 per cent. That principle was distinct from the appellant’s real complaint, which concerned disparity between sentences. The appellant relied on Caley & Ors [2013] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 47 in relation to guilty-plea reductions.
2. An otherwise appropriate sentence is not reduced merely because another contemnor has received a more lenient sentence. The threshold for appellate intervention on disparity is high. The court should not create two over-lenient sentences merely to avoid the appearance of disparity.
3. The eight-month sentence was appropriate if the appellant’s case were considered alone. The contempts involved persistent and repetitive false statements, together with an attempt to impugn the integrity of a remorseful witness.
4. Lewis J had conducted the proceedings throughout and was best placed to assess the contemnors’ conduct, respective roles and remorse. Mr Aziz admitted the allegations immediately and demonstrated real remorse. Mrs Saleem admitted them later, after initially maintaining her innocence, and her conduct as a whole did not demonstrate comparable regret. Those differences justified different sentences, and the Court of Appeal was not justified in interfering.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 14 January 2015 dismissed Mrs Saleem’s appeal against the eight-month sentence for contempt of court.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: Lewis J dismissed the underlying personal injury claims after finding that the alleged accidents had not occurred, in [2014] EWHC 1846 (QB). In separate contempt proceedings, on 28 November 2014, he committed Mrs Saleem to prison for eight months.