Central Bedfordshire Council v Markwick & Anor

An application to commit a person to prison for contempt of court must be dealt with in public, with a public explanation for the court’s decision. Where the respondent seeks to defend such a grave application without legal representation, an adjournment to obtain proper representation should be allowed where appropriate. If the applicant withdraws the application, the court may dismiss it without determining whether contempt has been proved. The court may also impose a final cut-off preventing a further committal application based on earlier acts or omissions, while preserving the possibility of proceedings for later disobedience.

The local authority applied to commit the respondents, paternal grandparents of two adopted children, to prison for contempt of court. The alleged contempt concerned material appearing on social media which potentially linked the respondents to the children and their adoption, contrary to a reporting restriction order.

The respondents wished to defend the application and stated that they had been unable to obtain legal aid. They also denied placing the material online and said that it had been removed. Before the hearing concluded, the local authority confirmed that it no longer wished to pursue the committal application and that no offending material could then be found online.

1. Application dismissed. The application to commit the respondents to prison for contempt of court was finally dismissed because the local authority no longer wished to pursue it.
2. The court had given no consideration to the merits and made no finding whether either respondent had breached the reporting restriction order or whether any breach could have been proved to the criminal standard.
3. Because the application sought imprisonment for contempt, it was heard entirely in public and the judge gave a brief public judgment explaining why it was being dismissed.
4. The respondents wished to defend the application but had been unable to obtain legal aid. In any event, the court would have adjourned the matter to enable them to seek and obtain proper legal representation for so grave a proceeding.
5. A further provision was added to the order preventing any future committal application based on an act or omission occurring before approximately 1 p.m. on 12 October 2016. The reporting restriction order remained in force, and a fresh application could be made for later disobedience.

First-instance application in the High Court (Family Division). The judgment records that earlier care and placement for adoption orders, and attempts to appeal those decisions, had concluded before this application, but this committal application was determined without consideration of its merits.