Galloway v Ali-Khan

In committal proceedings, strict compliance with the procedural requirements is ordinarily a prerequisite to imposing a contempt sanction. The court must also ensure that an unrepresented respondent understands the right to legal advice and legal aid, and has had a fair opportunity to prepare a response. Admissions may exceptionally be accepted from an unrepresented respondent where the allegations and consequences are understood, adequate notice has been given, and the circumstances disclose a fair and reliable admission. The determination of contempt is separate from sentencing.

George Galloway applied for sanctions for contempt against Aisha Ali-Khan. He alleged 26 breaches of undertakings given to the court, including undertakings not to publish defamatory or derogatory statements about him and not to republish references to him. Ms Khan appeared without legal representation and initially gave an equivocal indication that she admitted the allegations. After an adjournment to read the detailed schedule, she unequivocally admitted all 26 breaches.

The court considered whether the procedural requirements had been met and whether it was fair to proceed on the admissions despite Ms Khan’s lack of representation.

1. Procedural compliance. The requirements governing committal applications are contained in Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 81 and the Practice Direction. The application identified each alleged contempt separately and numerically, was supported by affidavit evidence, and had been validly served pursuant to an order dispensing with personal service.
2. Legal advice and legal aid. Because a respondent faces imprisonment or another penal sanction, the court must be scrupulous to ensure that the respondent knows of the opportunity for legal representation and legal aid. The requirements identified in Brown v Haringey LBC [2015] EWCA Civ 483 had been satisfied. Ms Khan had repeatedly been advised to obtain independent legal advice and had been given information about legal aid.
3. Fair opportunity. A respondent must have a reasonable time to respond and, if necessary, prepare a defence. Ms Khan had known of the application for several weeks, had received the papers and evidence, and had had ample opportunity to obtain representation. Her absence abroad and asserted health difficulties did not establish unfairness on the evidence.
4. Acceptance of admissions. It is exceptional to accept admissions of conduct approaching a criminal offence from an unrepresented litigant. Nevertheless, the court could do so where the respondent was educated and experienced in court proceedings, understood the undertakings and allegations, had sufficient opportunity for advice, and the papers disclosed no realistic unanswered issue as to the undertakings, publications or authorship. The court also considered the guidance of McCann & Anor v Bennett [2013] EWHC 283 (QB) concerning the court’s duty to identify points a self-represented litigant may have missed.
5. The admissions were clear and unequivocal. Ms Khan was found guilty of contempt in all 26 respects. The question of penalty was adjourned, unopposed.