Accident Exchange Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Broom & Ors

Sentences for contempt involving systematic fabrication of evidence must reflect the seriousness of conduct that interferes with the administration of justice. The court must impose the shortest custodial term properly justified, taking account of the offender’s role, the nature and duration of the contempt, admissions, remorse and personal mitigation.

Passage of time may justify reducing a sentence, and in an appropriate case may make immediate custody unfair. It is not, however, determinative. Where contempt involves prolonged and repeated fabrication of evidence, the seriousness of the conduct may outweigh delay and other mitigation. Costs do not ordinarily operate as a substitute for, or reason to avoid, an otherwise appropriate custodial sentence.

Accident Exchange Ltd brought committal proceedings against seven former employees of Autofocus Ltd. They were alleged to have participated in the systematic fabrication and deployment of false witness statements and expert evidence in motor-vehicle credit-hire litigation.

Following an eight-week trial, the court found the defendants in contempt of court. The present judgment concerned sentencing. The court considered the seriousness and duration of the contempts, the individual roles of the defendants, admissions and remorse, personal mitigation, and the lengthy period since the proceedings began, including a two-year stay for a police investigation.

1. The court held that there was no alternative to immediate custody. The contempts involved deliberate and repeated fabrication of evidence and interference with the due administration of justice over many months or years. The general approach in South Wales Fire and Rescue Service v Smith [2011] EWHC 1749 (Admin), approved in Fairclough Homes Ltd v Summers [2012] UKSC 26, and applied in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company v Bashir [2012] EWHC 895 (Admin), applied.
2. The maximum sentence under section 14(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 was two years. Sentencing required an assessment of each defendant’s role, the nature, seriousness and period of the contempt, admissions, genuine remorse and personal mitigation.
3. Passage of time was relevant to fairness but was not decisive. South Wales Fire and Rescue Service v Smith and HM Solicitor General v Stoddart [2017] EWHC 1361 (QB) concerned materially less serious and more limited contempts, including admissions or guilty pleas. They did not justify suspension here.
4. The substantial delay, including the two-year stay during the police investigation, warranted a reduction of one-third from the sentences otherwise appropriate. The court rejected the submission that anticipated costs should reduce or replace the custodial sentences.
5. Sentences imposed were: Nathan Broom, 10 months; Elaine Walker, 13 months and one week; Andrew Watts, seven months; David James, eight months; Laurence Gray, six months and three weeks; Keel Broom, six months; and Duncan Sadler, 12 months. The papers and judgment were directed to be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration of further action.