Aviva Insurance Ltd v Ahmed

When a contemnor seeks to purge contempt or obtain an early reduction of imprisonment, the court must assess whether the punishment already suffered is proportionate, whether early release would prejudice the rule of law, and how genuine the contrition is. A belated admission and apology may justify a reduction, but ordinarily only a modest one. The court may approach the reduction by analogy with mitigation for a guilty plea at the court door. The apology does not ordinarily justify immediate discharge where the contempt was serious and deliberate.

The claimant had obtained the defendant’s committal for contempt after he pursued a fraudulent personal-injury claim based on a deliberately caused road collision. In [2017] EWHC 3276 (QB), the defendant was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment in his absence after the court was satisfied that he had been duly served.

After spending approximately seven weeks in custody, the defendant was brought before the court and acknowledged his contempt. He applied to purge it and provided a written apology. The issue was whether his late admission, contrition and apology justified immediate discharge or a reduction of the sentence.

1. The application to purge the contempt was entertained despite the absence of a written application under CPR 81.3(1), because the judge was prepared to waive that formality in the circumstances.
2. The court considered the guidance in Swindon Borough Council v Webb [2016] EWCA Civ 152, including the questions drawn from CJ v Flintshire Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 393. The relevant considerations included whether the punishment already suffered was proportionate, whether early discharge would significantly prejudice the State’s interest in upholding the rule of law, and how genuine the contemnor’s contrition was.
3. The defendant’s continuing false assertion that the collision had been genuine made the court cautious about accepting his account. Nevertheless, after seeing the evidence and facing the consequences, he had accepted responsibility, admitted that he had deliberately committed a fraud, and was accepted as genuinely sorry.
4. Immediate discharge was inappropriate. The seriousness of the deliberate fraud, the danger caused to other road users, and the need to uphold the authority of the court remained material. However, the late apology could properly be treated by analogy with a guilty plea entered at the court door.
5. The nine-month sentence was reduced by one month to eight months’ imprisonment. The defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs of the committal application, subject to detailed assessment on the standard basis if not agreed.

The judgment records that the defendant had previously been committed to prison for nine months in the same proceedings by the High Court in [2017] EWHC 3276 (QB). The present hearing reconsidered the sentence after the defendant acknowledged his contempt and sought to purge it.