JTR v HNL

Permission to bring private-party committal proceedings requires a strong prima facie case and a public-interest assessment conducted consistently with proportionality and the overriding objective. The significance of the alleged falsehoods matters, but the fact that lies may not have altered the substantive result is not by itself decisive. The court must consider the strength and quality of the evidence, the need for a fresh factual investigation, likely cost and duration, the parties’ motives, fairness, and the wider public interest in deterring false evidence. Even where a prima facie case exists, permission may properly be refused where the proposed proceedings would be disproportionate, weak, vindictive, or primarily private in purpose.

The Applicant sought permission under Part 81 of the Civil Procedure Rules to pursue the Respondent for contempt of court. The alleged contempt consisted of knowingly false statements in witness statements made in earlier privacy proceedings concerning sexual relationships, messages, and meetings.

The Applicant relied principally on his own affidavit and documentary material. The Respondent filed no fresh evidence, but relied on the Applicant’s adverse credibility findings in related proceedings, the absence of an affidavit from a proposed supporting witness, the alleged lack of materiality, delay, disproportionality, and the private and vindictive character of the application. The central issue was whether permission should be granted, or the matter referred to the Attorney General.

1. Permission refused. The court had jurisdiction to assess the public interest itself and was not required to refer the matter to the Attorney General. Any permission, if granted, could have been made subject to legal representation and could have been confined to a narrower set of allegations ([30]–[32]).
2. The governing approach was drawn from Kirk v Walton [2008] EWHC 1780 (QB), KJM Superbikes Ltd v Anthony James Hinton [2008] EWCA Civ 1280, Barnes (t/a Pool Motors) v Seabrook [2010] EWHC 1849 (Admin), and Makdessi v Cavendish Square Holdings BV [2012] EWCA Civ 1540. The discretion had to be exercised with great caution. The Applicant needed a strong prima facie case, the alleged false statements had to be significant, and proceedings had to serve the public interest and remain proportionate under the overriding objective.
3. The court accepted that the Applicant had a prima facie case, but not a strong one. His credibility had been seriously damaged by findings in the related proceedings, his present affidavit was inconsistent with some of those findings, and there was no affidavit from the principal supporting witness. The documentary material did not sufficiently overcome those deficiencies ([35](1), [36]–[38]).
4. The alleged lack of effect on the outcome of the privacy proceedings was not a sufficient reason, by itself, to refuse permission. A party cannot readily contend that evidence was immaterial when it was given in proceedings requiring full and frank disclosure. Nevertheless, the materiality point retained some weight ([33]–[34]).
5. A fair committal hearing would require a substantial new factual inquiry, credibility findings, and potentially extensive cross-examination. The findings in the related proceedings might be inadmissible or, at most, non-conclusive because the inquiry and standard of proof differed. The likely expense, delay, burden on the Respondent and public resources, the Applicant’s apparent vindictive motives, and the risk of an unfairly one-sided public outcome outweighed the general public interest in deterring lies to the court ([35](2)–(7)).