Patel v Patel & Ors

Sentencing for contempt is principally punitive and deterrent where the contempt is complete and no coercive purpose remains. The court must assess the seriousness of the conduct and impose the minimum sentence necessary to punish the contempt and deter others. Relevant mitigation includes culpability, pressure or influence, cooperation, admissions, apology, character and personal circumstances. A guilty plea may justify a substantial reduction. Imprisonment is a last resort, but deliberate attempts to subvert the administration of justice through fraudulent claims and repeated false evidence may require immediate custody. Separate contempts serving the same purpose may attract concurrent sentences.

The claimant brought committal proceedings arising from probate proceedings in which the first defendant had advanced a claim based on an alleged 2005 will. In Patel v Patel [2017] EWHC 133 (Ch), the probate claim was dismissed after the will was found to be forged. There was no appeal.

In the committal proceedings, all four defendants admitted giving false evidence, knowing it to be false. The court determined whether contempt had been established, assessed mitigation and imposed sanctions.

1. The court found, to the criminal standard and so that it was sure, that all four defendants had committed contempt. The first defendant had initiated and pursued a fraudulent probate claim based on a forged will. The other defendants had supported it by repeatedly giving knowingly false evidence.

2. The contempt jurisdiction had punitive and deterrent functions. Its coercive function was irrelevant because there was no continuing contempt capable of being purged.

3. The relevant sentencing factors were not closed. They included prejudice, pressure, deliberateness, culpability, influence by others, appreciation of seriousness, cooperation, admissions, apology, character and personal circumstances. The timing and completeness of admissions affected the discount.

4. The several contempts served the same purpose, so the penalties ran concurrently. The second, third and fourth defendants each received three months’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months on terms that they commit no further contempt. The first defendant received 12 months’ immediate imprisonment because of the seriousness of the conduct, the need for deterrence and the importance of preserving judicial integrity.

First-instance committal proceedings. The related probate claim was dismissed with indemnity costs in [2017] EWHC 133 (Ch), with no appeal.