Gibbs v Gibbs

Committal for contempt has an essentially criminal character. The applicant must prove deliberate disobedience to the criminal standard, and suspicion or recalcitrance is insufficient. Imprisonment is not automatic. The court must consider the limited range of sanctions and the dual purposes of punishment and securing future compliance. Committal proceedings should generally be brought promptly while evidence remains available and events are fresh. Where breaches are admitted, the order is clear, procedural safeguards have been observed, and the contemnor remains deliberately defiant and unwilling to comply, an immediate custodial sentence may be imposed.

The applicant sought to commit his former wife to prison for breach of orders made by Roberts J prohibiting publication of information and allegations arising from earlier family proceedings. The respondent admitted 22 breaches, involving emails circulated to numerous recipients and copied to the applicant’s solicitor. She appeared unrepresented and declined an opportunity to obtain criminal legal aid or to suspend any sentence on an undertaking to comply.

The court considered whether the procedural requirements for committal had been met and what sentence was appropriate in light of the admitted breaches, the respondent’s continuing defiance and the history of prior family proceedings.

1. Application granted. The respondent was committed to prison for nine months for breach of the orders made by Roberts J. She was informed that she could seek a further hearing to purge her contempt.
2. Committal proceedings have an essentially criminal law complexion. Contempt must be proved to the criminal standard, so that the judge is sure, and the burden remains on the applicant. Contempt requires deliberate contumelious disobedience; suspicion of recalcitrance is insufficient. These principles were drawn from Re: Whiting [2013] EWCOP B27, with the authorities there identified, including Mubarak v Mubarak [2001] 1 FLR 698, Re: A (A Child) [2008] EWCA Civ 1138 and London Borough of Southwark v B [1993] 2 FLR 559.
3. Imprisonment is not the automatic consequence of contempt. The court’s options include doing nothing, adjourning, imposing a fine, sequestrating assets and, where relevant, making orders under the Mental Health Act. Committal applications commonly have the dual objectives of punishment and securing future compliance. They should be brought expeditiously, particularly where evidence may deteriorate or vulnerable witnesses and capacity issues are involved. The court also referred to Jamie Malcolm Hale v Rachel Tanner [2000] 2 FLR 879.
4. The procedural safeguards were satisfied. The orders clearly warned that breach might result in committal, the breaches and supporting material were identified accessibly, and the hearing took place in open court. L (A child) [2016] EWCA Civ 173 emphasised the importance of procedural compliance where liberty is at stake.
5. The breaches were admitted. The respondent remained defiant, rejected an undertaking to comply, and expressed her willingness to remain in contempt. In those circumstances, the court considered that no sanction short of immediate imprisonment adequately reflected the nature and consequences of the breaches.