ET v ST

Permission is required for contempt proceedings based on a false statement verified by a statement of truth. Where alleged lies on oath are pursued solely for punishment, and have no coercive or deterrent purpose, the ordinary and appropriate route is criminal prosecution for perjury. The court should consider proportionality and the proper use of judicial resources before permitting contempt proceedings. Dishonesty taking enforcement proceedings outside the ordinary case may justify indemnity costs. Where a coercive committal application achieves its object but is then pursued single-mindedly for punishment, only part of the committal costs may be recoverable.

The husband sought enforcement of a consent order requiring the respondent wife to deliver up a painting. The painting was eventually recovered after enforcement and committal proceedings had been issued. The wife admitted that evidence given on oath and statements verified by statements of truth had been false.

The husband applied for permission to pursue committal proceedings for perjury and for the false witness statement. The court considered whether lies on oath fell within the provisions governing committal proceedings for interference with the due administration of justice, and whether contempt proceedings were proportionate once the underlying objective had been achieved.

1. False statement verified by a statement of truth. Proceedings for contempt based on such a statement required permission under rule 17.6(2), because the application was not brought by the Attorney General. The court declined permission under rule 17.6(2)(b). The false statement was a minor addendum to the admitted perjury, and contempt proceedings would be disproportionate and an unreasonable use of court resources when the more serious matter could be pursued through criminal proceedings.
2. Lies on oath. The characterisation of perjury as contempt in the face of the court or interference with the due administration of justice was not free from ambiguity. The court noted the view expressed in Re L (A Child) [2016] EWCA 173, but proceeded on the basis that the alternative characterisation might be correct and considered permission under rule 37.13(2).
3. Where contempt proceedings concerning alleged lies on oath have no coercive or deterrent purpose and are brought solely to punish, the court should consider carefully whether its resources should be used when criminal proceedings are available. Perjury is a serious offence. The normal route is to seek permission to release the relevant transcripts and documents to the police, so that the Crown Prosecution Service can decide whether prosecution is in the public interest and whether there is more than an even chance of conviction. Permission for committal proceedings for the alleged perjury was therefore refused.
4. The husband was entitled to indemnity costs for the enforcement application. Dishonesty was conduct taking the case outside the ordinary circumstances in which indemnity costs may be awarded.
5. The committal application had initially served a successful coercive purpose because the painting was recovered. However, after that objective had been achieved, the husband pursued the application for punishment. He was therefore awarded 50% of the costs of the committal application, assessed on the standard basis.