Nasrullah Mursalin, Re

Committal proceedings for contempt require strict compliance with procedural safeguards. The alleged contemnor must receive proper notice of the application and precise particulars of the alleged breach. The court must assess the seriousness of the conduct and the individual's culpability. A defendant is entitled to decide whether to give evidence and cannot be compelled to enter the witness box. Agreement to proceed without representation does not cure fundamental procedural defects. Where the process is conducted summarily without these protections, the resulting committal order cannot stand.

This was an appeal against an order of the Family Court in Reading committing the appellant to six months' imprisonment, suspended for six months, after he disclosed documents from family proceedings in immigration proceedings without permission. The appellant was an unqualified paralegal acting under the supervision of a solicitor. He contended that he had received no proper notice of contempt proceedings, had not understood the hearing, had lacked independent representation and had been compelled to give evidence. The central issue was whether the committal process complied with the procedural safeguards governing contempt proceedings.

1. Appeal allowed. The suspended committal order was set aside and expunged from the record. Costs were reserved.
2. The court accepted that disclosure of confidential family documents without permission was unlawful under section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 and rule 12.73 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010. Nothing in the judgment excused that disclosure. The appeal turned on the fairness of the committal process.
3. Committal proceedings are highly technical because imprisonment may result. Applying the safeguards identified in Re L (a Child) Re Gous Oddin [2016] EWCA Civ 173, the appellant should have received proper notice of the application, the order or obligation allegedly breached, and the precise allegations. The court should then have adjourned the matter to permit proper consideration and legal advice. The appellant's agreement to proceed did not cure the defects.
4. The allegations had not been particularised. The judge had not seen the documents allegedly disclosed and therefore could not assess the seriousness of the breach. He had also failed adequately to consider the appellant's individual culpability or whether the supervising solicitor was principally responsible.
5. The judge wrongly directed the appellant to take the oath and give evidence. A respondent to a committal application is not obliged to give evidence. The court also failed to record whether the hearing was in open court, contrary to the requirement that an open hearing be recorded on the order where the default position is a private hearing.
6. Lord Justice Coulson agreed that none of the five safeguards identified in Re L had been met and that the process was neither fair nor transparent. The resulting order was manifestly unjust and had to be quashed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): in [2019] EWCA Civ 1559, allowed the appeal and set aside the suspended committal order.
• Family Court in Reading: on 12 July 2019, HHJ Moradifar committed the appellant to six months' imprisonment, suspended for six months, for contempt arising from unauthorised disclosure of family proceedings documents.