Root v Medway Council (Application to Purge Contempt)

An application to purge contempt may be granted where the contemnor gives a genuine and unconditional apology, undertakes future compliance, and takes effective steps to remedy the breaches. The court must also consider whether the purposes of the committal orders, including punishment and prevention of further breaches, have been achieved. Repeated earlier breaches and the need to place trust in the contemnor remain relevant. Where the breach has been remedied and the purposes of the orders have been fulfilled, the court may permit the contempt to be purged and order release from custody, while making clear that the underlying orders remain in force.

Sara Root applied to purge her contempt while serving a nine-month custodial sentence imposed for repeated breaches of orders restricting publication of information concerning two children. The application relied on deterioration in her health and an unconditional apology accompanied by an undertaking to comply with the orders.

With assistance from the Prison Service, the relevant internet material was removed or made inaccessible. Medway Council no longer opposed the application because the purpose of its committal applications had been achieved. The central issue was whether Ms Root had genuinely apologised, remedied the breaches and satisfied the court that the contempt could properly be purged.

1. The application was granted. The court permitted Sara Root to purge her contempt and ordered her release from custody.
2. The court accepted, albeit with hesitation, that Ms Root’s apology was genuine and unconditional. She had given sworn evidence, accepted that the orders had to be obeyed, and promised to comply with them in future.
3. The relevant material had been removed from the public domain or was no longer publicly accessible. This achieved the practical purpose for which the local authority had pursued the committal applications, namely to stop the publication of personal information concerning the children and provide them with respite.
4. The court considered that punishment had also been achieved. Ms Root had experienced the custodial sentence and understood that further breaches could result in a substantial custodial sentence. Her previous repeated breaches and the consequent need to place trust in her remained material considerations.
5. The underlying orders remained in full force and effect until 2023. The court recorded that the requirement under Family Procedure Rules 2010, rule 37.30(2)(a), had been complied with through Ms Root’s signed statement confirming the matters in Part C of her application.